Allowed

Archana Vivek Gaddam v. Vivek Rajvardhan Gaddam

Bombay HC4 Dec 2023MCA/27/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appellant matter, the applicant, who suffers from ailing parental health and financial hardship, sought transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Family Court Pune to Ahmednagar to facilitate attendance. The Single Judge, noting the applicant's inability to travel and the respondent's proximity to the Pune court, allowed the application and ordered the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Petition No. A-1495/2018 from Family Court Pune to Family Court Ahmednagar; Issue notice to parties to appear on 08.01.2024.

Archana Vivek Gaddam Vs Vivek Rajvardhan Gaddam — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 170.MCA-27-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2019

¶4

ARCHANA VIVEK GADDAM

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

VIVEK RAJVARDHAN GADDAM

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jayabhar Dattatraya R.

¶8

 CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
 DATE : 4th DECEMBER 2023.

¶9

Per Court :

¶10

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent, though served.

¶11

2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking transfer of the proceedings of dissolution of marriage filed before the Family Court at Pune to Family Court at Ahmednagar.

¶12

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that it is not possible for the applicant to attend the proceedings by travelling from Ahmednagar to Pune. She has ailing parent and she cannot travel alone.

¶13

4. I have considered rival submissions. I record following findings.

¶14

(i) It is inconvenient for the applicant to travel and attend the proceedings at Pune.

¶15

¶16

170.MCA-27-2019.doc

¶17

(ii) She has no source of income and she is staying with her parents.

¶18

(iii) Her sufferings and hardship are apparent.

¶19

(iv) There is nothing on record to show that the respondent is unable to attend the proceedings by travelling from Pune to Ahmednagar.

¶20

(v) The applicant has initiated proceedings at Ahmednagar against the respondent.

¶21

5. A useful reference can be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following matters :

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

170.MCA-27-2019.doc

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

a. The Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed.

¶35

b. The proceeding bearing Petition No. A-1495/2018 pending before the Family Court at Pune shall stand transferred to the Family Court at Ahmednagar.

¶36

c. An endeavour be made to decide the proceedings finally as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

d. The concern court shall transmit the papers immediately.

¶38

e. The parties to appear before the Family Court at Ahmednagar on 08.01.2024.

¶39

f. All the proceedings pending at a place where the applicant is residing be preferably posted on same date.

¶40

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]

¶41

Najee b .

Archana Vivek Gaddam v. Vivek Rajvardhan Gaddam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Vivek Gaddam v. Vivek Rajvardhan Gaddam

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

Babasaheb Pandurangrao Jadhav and Others Vs Shaikh Javed Shaikh Nasir

Savita Sanju Ithape Alias Savita Navnath Khakal Vs Sanju Alias Sanjay Namdeo Ithape

Poonam Yogesh Desale Vs Yogesh Balu Desale

Chetana Abhay Patil Vs Abhay Jitendra Patil

Shalu Sumeet Singh Vs Sumeet Rajesh Singh

Shilabai Yuvaraj Alias Dattatray Sarang Vs Yuvaraj Alias Dattatray Haribhau Sarang