Allowed

Swati Shridhar Ubale v. Shridhar Murlidhar Ubale

Bombay HC13 Oct 2023MCA/227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Satara to CBD Belapur. The court held that under Section 24 CPC, the ends of justice require transferring the case to a court near the applicant-wife's residence, prioritizing her convenience over the husband's.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 69 of 2020 from Civil Judge Satara to Civil Judge CBD Belapur. Leave granted to amend the prayer clause.

Swati Shridhar Ubale Vs Shridhar Murlidhar Ubale — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

23-MCA-227-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2021

¶5

SWATI SHRIDHAR UBALE)...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

SHRIDHAR MURLIDHAR UBALE )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Harshad Sathe, Advocate for the Applicant (Legal Aid).
Mr.D.D.Rananaware, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE:13th OCTOBER 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. This is an Application seeking transfer of Divorce proceedings filed by the Respondent-husband before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane.

¶12

2.Today, when the matter is called out, Mr.Harshad Sathe, learned
Counsel for the Applicant-wife, appointed through legal aid, would
submit that now there is also a Court at CBD Belapur. The Applicant-
wife resides at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, which comes under the
jurisdiction of CBD, Belapur, and therefore, he seeks leave of this Court

¶13

avk 1/5

¶14

23-MCA-227-2021.doc

¶15

to amend the Application. Mr.D.D.Rananaware, learned Counsel for the
Respondent-husband has no objection. Let the amendment be carried
out forthwith.

¶16

3.Mr.Harshad Sathe for the Applicant-wife would submit that the
marriage between the Applicant-wife and the Respondent-husband was
solemnized on 25th May 2013 at Satara. Thereafter, on 15th March
2014, the Applicant-wife gave birth to a girl child. On 14th July 2015,
the Respondent-husband sent a notice to the Applicant-wife. The said
notice was replied by the Applicant-wife. After this, on 6th March 2020,
the Applicant-wife received a notice with respect to the Divorce Petition
filed by the Respondent-husband before the Civil Judge Senior Division
at Satara.

¶17

4. Mr.Harshad Sathe would submit that the Applicant-wife is residing at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai along with her mother. It is submitted that the Applicant-wife has a 9 year old girl child, who goes to a Municipal school. It is submitted that the Applicant-wife as well as the mother have very meagre resources to sustain, as both of them are presently working as house-help. That, the distance between Satara and Navi Mumbai is 225 kilmeters one way and it would not only be avk 2/5

¶18

23-MCA-227-2021.doc

¶19

inconvenient for the Applicant-wife to leave her daughter and mother
and travel to Satara, every time the matter is listed there. Learned
Counsel would submit that, infact, the Applicant-wife does not have
money even to travel to Satara, considering the nature of work she
performs. Learned Counsel would submit that the stage of the Divorce
proceedings, at which they were stayed by this Court, was for
appearance.

¶20

5.On the other hand, Mr.D.D.Rananaware for the Respondent-
husband would submit that a number of times endeavour has been
made to settle the dispute between the parties, however, since the
demands from the Applicant-wife are too exorbitant, the same have not
fructified. He would submit that the Respondent-husband has a small
shop of mobile covers, and therefore, has been unable to meet the
demands raised by the Applicant-wife to settle the matter. Learned
Counsel would submit that the Respondent-husband lives in Shirval,
Satara.

¶21

6. It is observed from the record that Mediation between the parties has failed.

¶22

avk 3/5

¶23

23-MCA-227-2021.doc

¶24

7.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs.
A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha1 has emphasized that the cardinal principle
for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit,
appeal or other proceeding. That, given the prevailing socio-economic
paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience
which must be looked at while considering transfer.

¶25

8.In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the convenience of wife has to
be preferred over the convenience of husband.

¶26

9. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the Divorce proceedings pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara are transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at CBD Belapur.

¶27

10.The Application is made absolute in terms of amended Prayer
clause (a) which reads thus :

¶28

1 SCC Online SC 1199 (2022)

¶29

2 2005 (12) SCC 237

¶30

avk 4/5

¶31

23-MCA-227-2021.doc

¶32

“That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to transfer the
Hindu Marriage Petition No. 69 of 2020 pending before the
Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara to Learned Civil Judge
Senior Division, CBD Belapur at CBD Belapur.”

¶33

11.It is made clear that any observations on the merits of the dispute
between the parties is only to consider this application which shall not
influence the trial or disposal of the Marriage Petition which is to be
tried and decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the said
observations.

¶34

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶35

avk 5/5

Swati Shridhar Ubale v. Shridhar Murlidhar Ubale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Shridhar Ubale v. Shridhar Murlidhar Ubale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achita Aditya Rane Vs Mr. Aditya Anil Rane

Smt. Ankita Ketan Gandhi Vs Mr. Ketan Ajit Gandhi

Sou. Lata Surendrasingh Rajput Vs Shri. Surendrasingh Ishwarsingh Rajput

Rupali Narayan Sawant Vs Naresh Sarjerao Maske

Swati Shridhar Ubale Vs Shridhar Murlidhar Ubale

Tanager Investments Private Limited vs Orbit Corporation Limited in Liquidation through Official Liquidator