Allowed

Namrata Yuvraj Mastud v. Yuvraj Baburao Mastud

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023MCA/28/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench Aurangabad allowed an application seeking transfer of matrimonial dissolution proceedings from Family Court Bandra, Mumbai, to Family Court Dhule. The court held the applicant faced hardship travelling from Dhule while the respondent, residing abroad, could virtually attend proceedings. Transfer was granted.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; the Petition A No. 2237 of 2018 is transferred to the Family Court at Dhule.

Namrata Yuvraj Mastud Vs Yuvraj Baburao Mastud — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CORRECTED COPY This order is corrected as per Court’s order dated 18.12.2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

180 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2019

¶5

NAMRATA YUVRAJ MASTUD VERSUS

¶6

YUVRAJ BABURAO MASTUD

¶7

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Quadri Tabrezuddin Rahimuddin Advocate for Respondent : Mr. S.S. Birajdar h/f. Mr. Sudhir K. Chavan

¶8

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 11^th DECEMBER, 2023

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for for both the sides finally.

¶11

By way of this application, the applicant is seeking transfer of the proceedings of dissolution of marriage filed before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to Family Court at Dhule.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not possible for the applicant to attend the proceedings by travelling from Dhule to Mumbai. He further submits that the wife was serving in Mumbai for three months from January, 2018 to March 2018. Thereafter, she left Mumbai and residing at Dhule. The hardship and sufferings persist.

¶13

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application is frivolous. The applicant is able bodied person and is in a position to attend the proceedings at Mumbai. She has suppressed material facts. The conduct of the applicant was objectionable. No discretion can be exercised in her favour. He further submits that respondent is staying abroad. He has executed power of attorney in favour of his mother. His mother is old and unable to travel from Mumbai to Dhule for the Court proceedings. He submits that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent and his mother for attending the proceedings. He, therefore, requests to reject the application.

¶15

I have considered rival submissions. The respondent / husband is educated and rending services abroad. He has executed power of attorney in favour of his mother. However, he can matter virtually. He could request the Presiding Officer for suitable dates and the matter can be disposed of during his presence. The resistance of the respondent for this application is unsustainable. It is inconvenient for the applicant to travel and attend the proceedings at Mumbai. Her sufferings and hardship are apparent.

¶16

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

¶17

a) Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay , 2002 AIR (SC) 396 ;

¶18

b) Soma Choudhury Versus Gourab Choudhaury , (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 462 ;

¶19

¶20

c) Sangamitra Ramakant Royalwar Versus Ramakant Gangaram Royalwar , 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 303 ;

¶21

d) Anita Balkrishna Barge Versus Balkrishna Sopan Barge , 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 518 ;

¶22

e) Mahadevi Gopal Mehetre Versus Gopal Prabhakar Mehetre , 2016 (4) All.M.R. 599 ;

¶23

f) Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Versus Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap , 2016 AIR (SC) 3584 ;

¶24

g) Pooja Rohan Jadhav Vresus Rohan Ramesh Jadhav , order passed by High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in MCA No. 171 of 2018 ;

¶25

h) Ashwini Kailas Patil Versus Shivajirao Anandrao Gaekwar , order passed by High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in MCA No. 46 of 2020 .

¶26

For the reasons stated above, I pass following order :

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i. The Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed.

¶29

ii. The Petition A No. 2237 of 2018 pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, shall stand transferred to the Family Court at Dhule.

¶30

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

¶31

iv. The concern Court shall transmit the papers immediately.

¶32

¶33

v. The parties to appear before the Family Court at Dhule on 15^th January, 2024.

¶34

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

¶35

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ]

¶36

Thakur-Chauhan/-

Namrata Yuvraj Mastud v. Yuvraj Baburao Mastud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namrata Yuvraj Mastud v. Yuvraj Baburao Mastud

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

Gauri Ritesh Nadkarni Vs Ritesh Sharatchandra Nadkarni

Dadarao Shankarrao Gore Died Thr Lrs Prayagbai Dadarao Gore and Ors. Vs the New India Assurnace Co. Ltd. through Its Divsiional Manager Aurangabad and Anr.

Sushma Avinash Sonawane Vs Avinash Kundlik Sonawane

Akhtar Ali Mohammad Ali Vs Mannu Dharamvir Agrawal and Others

Vasudev Madhav Patil and Another Vs Muralidhar Madhav Patil and Others

Archana Alias Madhu Satish Jambhalikar Vs Satish Anandrao Jambhalikar