Disposed

Monika Vaibhav Pallelu @ Monika Waghmare v. Vaibhav Chandrakant Pallelu

Bombay HC12 Dec 2023MCA/204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous civil application sought directions for remote attendance in ongoing divorce proceedings and cost reimbursement. The court permitted video conferencing when physical presence was unnecessary and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3000 in advance for required travel.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to permit video conferencing when physical presence not required; respondent to pay Rs. 3000 in advance for required travel.

Monika Vaibhav Pallelu @ Monika Waghmare Vs Vaibhav… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

 12. MCA 204-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 204 OF 2023

¶4

Monika Vaibhav Pallelu @ Monika Waghmare...Applicant
V/s.
Vaibhav Chandrakant Pallelu...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Ajit V. Alange for Applicant.
Mr. Bhavesh Sawant i/b Ms. Minal Chandnani for Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE: 12th DECEMBER, 2023

¶7

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2023.12.13 11:57:43 +0530

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1. Pursuant to the order dated 8th December, 2023, when the matter
is called out, Mr. Alange, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits
that he has instructions to have the matter disposed with direction to
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune that on dates when the
Applicant’s physical presence is not required, she be permitted to
attend the divorce proceedings filed by the Respondent-husband
through video conferencing. That on dates, when her physical presence
is required, the Respondent to bear the Applicant’s reasonable cost of
travelling, lodging and boarding.

¶10

2. On the last date as well as today, on instructions, learned Counsel

¶11

for the Respondent submits that his client would bear the reasonable

¶12

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶13

 12. MCA 204-23.doc

¶14

cost of traveling, lodging and boarding of the Applicant to travel to the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division for attending the divorce
proceedings on dates, when her physical presence is required.

¶15

3. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with direction to the

¶16

Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune to permit the Applicant to
remain present through video conferencing on dates in the said divorce
proceedings no. 1986 of 2021 when the Applicant’s physical presence is
not required, upon an application made by the Applicant in this regard.
On dates, when the Applicant’s presence is required the Respondent to
pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs. 3000/- in advance before the date
when the Applicant’s physical presence is required.

¶17

4. The Application accordingly stands disposed of.

¶18

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶19

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Monika Vaibhav Pallelu @ Monika Waghmare v. Vaibhav Chandrakant Pallelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Vaibhav Pallelu @ Monika Waghmare v. Vaibhav Chandrakant Pallelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bengal Mills Stores Supply Company (Bombay) Vs Oriental Manufacture (a Division of Oriental Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd.)

Roofs and Ceillings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Larson and Toubro Ltd.

Ingram Micro India vs Network Bulls Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Shraddha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. vs Ekta Housing Private Limited

Gauri Sunil Patil Vs Sunil Manaji Patil

Dr. Payal Pravin Thokal Vs Dr. Pravin Chhaburao Thokal