Allowed

Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni v. Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni

Bombay HC7 Dec 2023MCA/187/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed applications filed by a wife residing in Pune seeking transfer of maintenance, separation, and PWDVA proceedings pending against her and other family members at Omerga to the Family Court at Pune. The court held that the applicant's hardship in traveling outweighs the respondent's convenience, especially since the applicant has not presented evidence at Omerga.

What did the court decide?

Transferred HMP No.90/2019, HMP No.84/2021, and PWDVA Case No.37/2020 from Courts at Omerga to the Family Court at Pune.

Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni Vs Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

 1061.MCA-187-2022with Cri.Appln.-2210-2022.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.187 OF 2022

¶5

Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni

¶8

AND

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2210 OF 2022

¶10

1. Sow. Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni

¶11

2. Ku. Ayush s/o Giresh Kulkarni ...Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni

¶14

2. Umakant s/o Kishanrao Kulkarni

¶15

3. Jayashri w/o Umakant Kulkarni

¶16

4. Ashwini Vikram Chitgopekar

¶17

5. Geetanjali w/o Amol Kulkarni ...Respondents

¶18

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kulkarni Girish N. (Mardikar)
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar

¶19

 CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
 DATE : 7th DECEMBER 2023.

¶20

Per Court :

¶21

. Heard both the sides finally. Both the applications are clubbed and heard together. Both the applications are filed by wife seeking transfer of proceedings.

¶22

2. The applicant/wife stays at Pune. The respondent/husband stays at Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad and has filed HMP No.90/2019 for

¶23

¶24

 1061.MCA-187-2022with Cri.Appln.-2210-2022.doc

¶25

separation. He has further filed HMP No.84/2021 for dissolution of
marriage. Both the applications are filed before the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Omerga against the applicant/wife. The applicant/wife
has filed PWDVA Case No.37/2020 before the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Omerga against respondent/husband as well as other family
members. The applicant/wife prays to transfer those proceedings
pending before the Courts at Omerga to the learned Family Court at
Pune.

¶26

3.The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is an
issue out of the said wedlock, staying with the applicant. The applicant
is awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides that
as interim arrangement, she has been allotted part of the house situated
at Omerga in the proceeding of PWDVA case No.37/2020.

¶27

4.The applicant is unable to travel the distance from Pune to
Omerga. She has already instituted proceeding for maintenance in
Family Court, Pune bearing Petition E. No.118/2023. The respondent /
husband is able bodied person and can travel.

¶28

5.The learned Counsel for the respondent/husband and other family
members who are parties in the criminal matter, has vehemently
opposed the request of transfer. He has pointed out that the part of
house which was allotted to the applicant, has been let out and she is
earning from the same. The proceedings which are pending at Omerga,
are on the verge of completion. The respondent/husband is ready to

¶29

 1061.MCA-187-2022with Cri.Appln.-2210-2022.doc

¶30

¶31

bear the expenses for traveling. According to him, this is not a fit case
to transfer the proceedings. Learned Counsel would submit that the
other family members who are parties in PWDVA No.37/2020 are aged
and ailing. It would be inconvenient for the respondent/husband to
keep himself and alongwith other respondents present at Pune.

¶32

6.I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The
applicant is looking after son and she is staying at Pune. If I considered
comparative hardship, the discretion tells in favour of the applicant.

¶33

7.The participation of the applicant has to be effective. Just because
the proceedings are on the verge of completion cannot be a ground to
reject the request of respondent. It transpires that the applicant has not
led her evidence in the Court at Omerga in any of the manner. In that
scenario, I am not ready to accept the submissions of learned Counsel
for the respondent.

¶34

8.The grievance of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that
the other respondents besides husband are aged and it is inconvenient
for them to attend the proceedings. The parties are at liberty to request
the Presiding Officer for exemption of appearances. Following
judgments support applicant:

¶35

A. Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41.

¶36

B. Soma Chaudhury Vs. Gourab Choudhaury reported in (2004) 13 SCC 462.

¶37

 1061.MCA-187-2022with Cri.Appln.-2210-2022.doc

¶38

¶39

C. Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in (2016) 14 SCC 356.

¶40

D. Sangamitra Ramakant Royalwar Vs. Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 303.

¶41

E. Anita Balkrishna Barge Vs. Balkrishna Sopan Barge reported in 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 518.

¶42

F. Mahadevi Gopal Mehetre Vs. Gopal Prabhakar Mehetre reported in 2016(4) All M.R. 599.

¶43

G. Judgment and order dated January 11, 2019 in Misc. Civil Application No.171/2018 in the matter of Pooja Rohan Jadhav Vs. Rohan Ramesh Jadhav.

¶44

H. Judgment and order dated 01 July 2022 in Misc. Civil Application No.46/2020 in the matter of Ashwini Kailas Patil Vs. Shivajirao Anandrao Gaekwar.

¶45

9. For the reasons stated above, I pass following order.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a. Both the applications are allowed.

¶48

b. The proceedings bearing H.M.P. No. 90/2019 and H.M.P. No.84/2021 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Taluka Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad and PWDVA Case No.37/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga shall stand transferred to the Family Court at Pune.

¶49

c. The parties shall cause their appearance before the learned Family Court at Pune on 08.01.2024.

¶50

d. The parties are at liberty to request for exemption of the appearances.

¶51

¶52

 1061.MCA-187-2022with Cri.Appln.-2210-2022.doc

¶53

e. The Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Pune is requested to keep all the matters of the parties in a day. It is further requested to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]

¶55

Najee b .

Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni v. Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni v. Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waraji Eknath Mudhale and Others Vs Dhondiba Ganapati Adagale and Another

Anandi Eliyas Amolik Vs Sureshchandra Shivnarayan Sharma and Ors.

Ramzani Khan Aulad Khan and Another Vs Late Aniskhan Ramzanikhan (Died) and Other

Kavita Narayan Solunke through Gpa Narayan Rangnathrao Solunke Vs Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Others

Dagadu Apparao Kharat Thr Lrs Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ankita W/O. Gitesh Kulkarni and Another Vs Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni and Others