Allowed

Gauri Sunil Patil v. Sunil Manaji Patil

Bombay HC12 Dec 2023MCA/383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application to transfer divorce proceedings from Kalyan to Islampur was allowed. The court held that under Section 24 CPC, the wife's economic convenience takes precedence in matrimonial transfers, noting the husband's absence and the wife's inability to travel.

What did the court decide?

Marriage Petition No. 397 of 2023 transferred from Civil Judge, Kalyan to Civil Judge, Islampur for trial.

Gauri Sunil Patil Vs Sunil Manaji Patil — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶2

 13. MCA 383-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2023

¶5

Gauri Sunil Patil ...Applicant
V/s.
Sunil Manaji Patil...Respondent

¶6

...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Tejas Hartalkar for Applicant.
None for Respondent.

¶8

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

¶9

1. This is an application filed by the Applicant-wife seeking transfer

¶10

of divorce proceedings filed by the Respondent-husband before the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kalyan, District, Thane to the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Islampur, District Sangli.

¶11

2. Mr. Hartalkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant points out to the
earlier orders of this Court and submits that although service to the
Respondent is complete, none appears for the Respondent even today
nor any reply has been filed. Learned Counsel draws the attention of
this Court to the order dated 1st December, 2023, to submit that this
Court has clearly recorded in the said order that if none appears for the
Respondent on the next date, this Court will proceed to hear the

¶12

Nikita Gadgil 1/7

¶13

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶14

 13. MCA 383-23.doc
matter. Learned Counsel, therefore, urges this Court to hear the matter
today.

¶15

3. It is observed that none appears for the Respondent, despite being served and despite opportunity being granted. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to hear the matter.

¶16

4. Mr. Hartalkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit
that the marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent was
solemnized on 17th June, 2019 in District Sangli. That there are no
issue to the parties out of the wedlock. Learned Counsel would submit
that earlier the Respondent – husband had issued a notice to the
Applicant seeking divorce by mutual consent, which was replied to by
the Applicant, who wanted to co-habit with the Respondent. However,
despite, the same the Respondent had gone ahead and filed the divorce
proceedings against the Applicant on 1st March, 2023, in the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. It is submitted that the Applicant
was served with the notice on 24th April, 2023 and she has filed written
statement. That pursuant to the stay granted by this Court in this
Application, the proceedings before the Court in Kalyant have been
stayed.

¶17

Nikita Gadgil 2/7

¶18

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶19

13. MCA 383-23.doc

¶20

5. Mr. Hartalkar, would submit that the Respondent is a practicing

¶21

Advocate and he has gone ahead and filed multiple proceedings against
the Applicant only to harass her. Learned Counsel submits that the
Applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Application under the Domestic
Violence Act against the Respondent and his family members before the
JMFC, Shirala, District. Sangli. Learned Counsel submits that the
Applicant is from a village and residing at village Arala and is
unemployed, living with her parents. Learned Counsel would submit
that her father is a agriculturist and has practically no source of income
to support the travel of the Applicant to Kalyan. Learned Counsel
would submit that the distance between Arala village and Kalyan is
about 350 km one way and it takes more than 10-12 hours one way. As

¶22

she is not accustomed to travel to Mumbai alone, she has to be
accompanied with atleast one elderly person to Mumbai and for that
purpose the Applicant is required to spend at least Rs.3000/- per day
to attend the Court at Kalyan, which is not possible to spend in view of
her being unemployed and her father being a simple agriculturist.
Learned Counsel submits that the Applicant is undergone to some
medical treatment, due to which she cannot take long journey from her
native village and also seeks to draw this Court’s attention to the

¶23

Nikita Gadgil 3/7

¶24

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶25

 13. MCA 383-23.doc
medical papers at Exhibit C of the Application, to substantiate the
treatment she has been taking but she has now discontinued the same
although she still can’t undertake long journeys.

¶26

6.Learned Counsel would submit that therefore it is not only
inconvenient for the Applicant to travel to Kalyan but also would cause
undue hardship, if the divorce proceeding is not transferred from
Kalyan to Islapmpur. Learned Counsel submits that on the other hand
the Respondent is a practicing Advocate at Kalyan and he would not
suffer any hardship if the divorce proceedings are transferred to
Islampur.

¶27

7.Mr. Hartalkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant draws the
attention of this Court to the judgment dated 15th September, 2023 in
the case of Mrs. Priyanka Rahul Patil Vs. Rahul Ravindra Patil1 in
support of his contention with respect to the hardship that would be
caused to the Applicant- wife, if she is called upon to attend to the
Court at Kalyan.

¶28

8. I have heard Mr. Hartalkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and also considered his submissions.

¶29

1 MCA 310 of 2022

¶30

Nikita Gadgil 4/7

¶31

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶32

13. MCA 383-23.doc

¶33

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha2 has clearly held that in matters where matrimonial proceedings come up for consideration under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) ends of justice demand that generally it the convenience of the wife which must be looked at. Paragraph No. 9 of the said decision is usefully quoted as under :-

¶34

“9.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. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts
are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts
have to take into consideration the economic soundness of
both the parties, the social strata of the spousesand their
behavioral pattern, their standard of life prior to the
marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of
both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under
whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance
to like. 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.”

¶35

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶36

11.Also, in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi V/s. Kishor Babulal

¶37

Pardeshi3, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the convenience
of the wife has tobe preferred over the convenience of the husband.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said decision are usefully quoted as under :

¶38

2 SCC Online SC 1199 (2022)

¶39

3 2005 (12) SCC 237

¶40

Nikita Gadgil 5/7

¶41

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶42

 13. MCA 383-23.doc

¶43

“3. The husband opposes the transfer on the ground that it is
equally inconvenient for him to go to Satana and that he is
willing to pay the expenses for her travel to Mumbai.

¶44

4. In this type of matter, the convenience of the wife is to be
preferred over the convenience of the husband. Hindu
Marriage Petition No.6 of 2004, Kishor Babulal Pardeshi v.
Rajani Kishor Pardeshi pending before the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division at Panvel, Mumbai, Maharashtra is
transferred to the Family Court of proper jurisdiction at
Satana, Madhya Pradesh.”

¶45

(Emphasis supplied)

¶46

10.This Court has also, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
Applicant in number of matters including Mrs. Priyanka Rahul Patil Vs.
Rahul Ravindra Patil (supra), observed that while considering
applications under Section 24 of the CPC with respect to matrimonial
proceedings not only the convenience of the wife has to be considered
but the convenience of the wife has to be preferred over the
convenience of the husband.

¶47

11.The Respondent despite service has chosen not to be represented
nor any reply has been filed on his behalf. As such the allegations and
submissions made in the application remain unchallenged.

¶48

12.Therefore, applying the settled principles of law to the facts of
this case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be

¶49

Nikita Gadgil 6/7

¶50

This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 20-12-2023

¶51

 13. MCA 383-23.doc
met if the application is allowed as prayed for. The application is
accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads

¶52

thus:-

¶53

“(a) That this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to transfer the
Marriage Petition No. 397 of 2023, filed in the Court of Jt.
Civil Judge (S.D.), Kalyan, Dist. Thane, for Divorce, under
Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending
in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Kalyan, Dist. Thane, to
the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), at Islampur, Dist. Sangli, to
try, entertain and decide the same”

¶54

13.Application accordingly stands disposed.

¶55

14.It is made clear that any observation(s) 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

¶56

to be tried and decided on its one merits uninfluenced by the said
observation(s).

¶57

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶58

Nikita Gadgil 7/7

¶59

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2023.12.20 20:08:42 +0530

Gauri Sunil Patil v. Sunil Manaji Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri Sunil Patil v. Sunil Manaji Patil

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

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

Monika Vaibhav Pallelu @ Monika Waghmare Vs Vaibhav Chandrakant Pallelu

Dr. Payal Pravin Thokal Vs Dr. Pravin Chhaburao Thokal