Disposed

Ashwini Dhanaji Kandekar v. Vikas Pandurang Solse

Bombay HC14 Dec 2023MCA/93/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous civil application regarding divorce proceedings, the Court directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 3500/- as traveling expenses to the Applicant and permitted the Applicant to appear via video conferencing when physical presence was not required.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay Rs. 3500/- traveling expenses; Applicant permitted to appear via video conferencing.

Ashwini Dhanaji Kandekar Vs Vikas Pandurang Solse — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

 31. MCA 93-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2022

¶4

Ashwini Dhanaji Kandekar...Applicant
V/s.
Vikas Pandurang Solse...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav for Applicant.
Mr. Ganesh Pawar h/f Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde for Respondent.

¶6

CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE:14th DECEMBER 2023
P.C. :

¶7

1.This matter was kept back in the morning session for Mr. Pawar,
learned Counsel for the Respondent to take instructions on the
traveling expenses to be paid to the Applicant on dates when her
physical presence would be required by the Court at Pune.

¶8

2.When the matter is called out in the afternoon session, Mr.
Pawar, learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that the
Respondent’s salary as can be seen from the Exhibit A.3 at page 62, is
only Rs. 16743/- and he cannot afford Rs. 5000/- to pay to her
travelling expenses.

¶9

Digitally NIKITA signed byNIKITAYOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2023.12.14 18:53:09 +0530

¶10

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶11

 31. MCA 93-22.doc

¶12

3.Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that
the Respondent has other businesses by which he has other income and
therefore, the statement made by the Advocate for the Respondent is
not entirely true. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits, on
instructions, that this application can be disposed, subject to payment
of reasonable traveling expenses to the Application and by directions to
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune to permit the
Applicant to appear through video conferencing in Divorce Petition no.
284 of 2017 on dates when her physical presence is not required.

¶13

4. Having heard the learned Counsel, following order is passed:-

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1) The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is directed
to permit the Applicant to appear through video conferencing
in Divorce Petition no. 284 of 2017 on dates when her
physical presence is not required.

¶16

2) The Respondent to pay to the Applicant Rs. 3500/- as
travelling expenses, in advance, for dates on which the
Applicant’s physical presence is required before the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune.

¶17

5. Application accordingly stands disposed.

¶18

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶19

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Ashwini Dhanaji Kandekar v. Vikas Pandurang Solse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Dhanaji Kandekar v. Vikas Pandurang Solse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatraya Trading Co. Vs J. Kimatrai and Co.

Mrs. Nanda Varsha Vinod Khairnar Vs Vinod Devidas Khairnar

Kavita Pritam Gavali @ Kavita Jagdish Ahire Vs Pritam Baban Gavali

Ashwini Ashish Raikwar Vs Ashish Vithal Raikwar

Rakhi Swapnil Igave Vs Swapnil Anil Igave

Sau. Shradha Shashikant Gore Vs Shri. Shahsikant Balkrushna Gore