Disposed

Sangeeta Bhagwan Patil v. Bhagwan Maharu Patil

Bombay HC5 Dec 2023APPLN/171/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application seeking transfer of a Domestic Violence complaint from Jalgaon to Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The High Court allowed the transfer based on joint convenience of parties and directed expédition of the trial. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

Transfer of DV complaint No.111 of 2014 from J.M.F.C. Jalgaon to J.M.F.C. Belapur, Navi Mumbai and direction to expedite trial.

Sangeeta Bhagwan Patil Vs Bhagwan Maharu Patil — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 of 332-appln-171-23

¶2

Gokhale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2023

¶5

Sangeeta Bhagwan Patil ..Applicant
Versus
Bhagwan Maharu Patil..Respondent

¶6

Mr. Mohan C. Kumbhar i/b. Sameer Mhatre for Applicant.
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode a/w. Arvind Sable for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 5DECEMBER 2023

¶8

PC :

¶9

1.The present application is filed by the applicant with a

¶10

prayer for transferring the Domestic Violence complaint bearing

¶11

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

¶12

No.111 of 2014 pending before the J.M.F.C., Jalgaon to the court
of the J.M.F.C., Belapur, Navi Mumbai. It is her case that, she is a
lady residing along with her two sons at Nerul pursuant to the
order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the 7th J.M.F.C., Jalgaon.
Therefore, it is inconvenient for her to travel from Nerul to Jalgaon
to attend the case under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act. The respondent/husband is also residing in the same
house, though, there is a partition wall in the said flat. The

¶13

Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2023.12.06 11:17:28 +0530

¶14

2 of 332-appln-171-23

¶15

Respondent/husband is a teacher in a school situated at Devnar
and, therefore, even for him it would be convenient to attend the
court at Navi Mumbai.

¶16

2.Learned counsel for the Respondent/husband himself
submitted that it is convenient for the husband, as well, if the case
is transferred from Jalgaon to Navi Mumbai.

¶17

3.Considering this joint request, there can be no
impediment in transferring the case from Jalgaon Court to Navi
Mumbai. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that,
considering that the case is pending since 2014, though, initially
the case was filed in the year 2013, some directions be issued for
expediting the trial. This request is also reasonable.

¶18

4.Hence, the following order:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

i)The application is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b); which reads thus:

¶21

“b) To transfer the Domestic Violence complaint
vide complaint bearing No.111 of 2014 from the Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon to Ld. Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Belapur, Navi-Mumbai.”

¶22

32-appln-171-23

¶23

3 of 3

¶24

ii)Learned J.M.F.C., Belapur, Navi Mumbai shall
consider expediting the trial of the said case as it
is pending for almost 10 years.

¶25

iii)With this direction, the application is disposed of.

¶26

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Sangeeta Bhagwan Patil v. Bhagwan Maharu Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Bhagwan Patil v. Bhagwan Maharu Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivtirth Dudh Dairy through Mr Phokane Shivaji Eknath Vs the Nashik Merchant Co. Op Bank Ltd. Nashik through Mr Pisal Santosh Vasantraoand Anr.

Antim Bhagwandas Totla Vs State of Maharashtra

Antim Bhagwandas Totla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Koushik Pradip Marathe and Ors. Vs the Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kalpesh Rajendra Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manu Jitesh Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.