Dismissed

Neeraj Shridhar v. Nikila Shridhar W/O. Neeraj Shridhar

Bombay HC7 Jan 2022MCA/43/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous Civil Application, the husband sought transfer of divorce proceedings from Pune to Mumbai under Section 24 of CPC, citing age and hardship. The court rejected the application, noting the wife's alleged permanent residence in Mumbai was disputed and the transfer of execution proceedings had already been initiated in her favor.

What did the court decide?

Transfer application rejected; application stands dismissed.

Neeraj Shridhar Vs Nikila Shridhar W/O. Neeraj Shridhar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

(901)-MCA-43-21.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJI GOVINDRAO GOVINDRAO PANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2022.01.11 15:53:56 +0530

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2021

¶5

Neeraj Shridhar ..Applicant
Versus
Nikila Shridhar w/o Neeraj Shridhar ..Respondent

¶6

Ms. Rohini Wagh, for the Applicant.
Ms. Monica Salian i/by Corporate Attorneys, for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶8

 DATE : 7th JANUARY, 2022

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1. This application is moved by the husband seeking
transfer of divorce proceedings being Petition No.A-1151 of 2020
pending on the file of Family Court, Pune of which transfer is sought
at Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

¶11

2. Ms. Rohini Wagh learned counsel appearing for the
applicant while trying to make out case under Section 24 of the CPC
for transfer would urge that the non-applicant is already attending
execution proceedings at Family Court, Bandra vide Regular
Darkhast No.296 of 2021. Apart from above, according to her in
Crime No.27 of 2016 the non-applicant is complainant and charge-
sheet in the said matter is presented in the Court at Bombay which
otherwise she is required to attend. In addition, it is claimed that
the non-applicant is shown to be defendant in civil suit pending in

¶12

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶13

(901)-MCA-43-21.doc .

¶14

Dindoshi Court and that being so, she is required to attend above
three proceedings at Bombay. It is claimed that in the aforesaid
background and having regard to the fact that applicant is custodian
of a minor son aged about 14 years, if required to travel to Pune will
suffer more hardship particularly in the backdrop of his advanced
age of 60 years.

¶15

3. Prayer made is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondent.

¶16

4. I have considered aforesaid submissions.

¶17

5. A prayer is made for seeking transfer of proceedings
under Section 24 of CPC by the applicant/husband alleging that in
the proceedings pending at Bombay non-applicant/wife is not
required to attend the same on day to day basis as she has already
engaged lawyer to represent her. As far as the transfer of execution
proceedings is concerned, the same I am informed was initiated at
Family Court, Pune and transferred to Bombay. In the aforesaid
background, convenience of the respondent/wife is required to be
considered.

¶18

6. Apart from above, one of the ground which is urged for
seeking transfer that the non-applicant is permanently staying with
the applicant at Bombay and as such it shall be convenient even for
the non-applicant to attend the proceedings at Bombay. The

¶19

BGP. 2 o f 3

¶20

(901)-MCA-43-21.doc .

¶21

aforesaid fact is disputed by the counsel for the non-applicant as
according to her non-applicant/wife is required to stay at Pune with
her parents. The applicant is not cooperating even in the execution
proceedings which has prompted her to attend execution
proceedings at Bombay. As far as the issue of place of permanent
residence of non-applicant at Bombay is concerned, the fact is
already disputed by the non-applicant.

¶22

7. In the aforesaid background, particularly having regard
to the fact that there are pleadings at the behest of the non-
applicant that she is compelled to stay at Pune with her parents,
which in my opinion, prompts this Court to reject the said
contention of the applicant.

¶23

8. As such, no convincing ground for exercise of Section 24
of CPC in favour of the applicant.

¶24

9. That being so, application stands rejected.

¶25

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶26

BGP. 3 o f 3

Neeraj Shridhar v. Nikila Shridhar W/O. Neeraj Shridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Shridhar v. Nikila Shridhar W/O. Neeraj Shridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitaram Govind Panse and Anr. Vs Laxman Govind Panse Since Decd through Lrs and Ors.

Sitaram Govind Panse and Anr. Vs Laxman Govind Panse Since Decd through Lrs

Mrs. Smita Deepak Agawane Vs Mr. Deepak Dattatray Agawane

Vitthal Laxman Dagade and Ors. Vs Ramchandra @ Ramdas Laxman Dagade

Mrs. Geetanjali Ashok Kolekar Vs Mr. Ashok Arjun Kolekar

Rahul Bhimrao Dalvi and Anr. Vs Balaso Madhavrao Patil and Ors.