Allowed

Seema Satish Thombare v. Satish Pandurang Thombare

Bombay HC11 Jan 2024MCA/104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application by the wife for transfer of pending divorce petition filed by the husband from Sangli to Solapur family court was allowed. The court noted the wife resides with her parents in Solapur where other proceedings are pending, and applied the settled principle that the convenience of the wife must be considered as the evidence stage had not commenced.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the marriage/divorce petition pending at Family Court, Sangli to Family Court, Solapur.

Seema Satish Thombare Vs Satish Pandurang Thombare — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

38-MCA-104-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2022

¶6

Seema Satish Thombare ….Applicant Versus Satish Pandurang Thombare ….Respondent

¶7

Mr. Vikrant V. Phatate, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Rahul R. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶8

Digitally signed SHANTANUSHANKARSA by SHANTANUSHANKARSADHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.01.12 18:08:08 +0530

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 11^th JANUARY, 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned

¶13

counsel for the Respondent.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Respondent tendered the reply, it is taken on record.

¶15

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant has filed proceedings under Restitution of Conjugal Rights at Family Court, Solapur and application under Domestic Violence Act which is pending at Solapur. Learned counsel further submitted

1/3

38-MCA-104-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

that the Applicant stays with her old age parents. The Respondent has filed petition for divorce, which is pending at Family Court, Sangli. The Applicant is finding it difficult to go to Sangli to attend the dates of the petition filed by the Respondent. Hence, requested to transfer the said petition at Family Court, Solapur.

¶20

It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent has filed petition for divorce against the Applicant during the pendency of the said petition to counter it. The Applicant has filed two petitions at Solapur. The Respondent is ready to give travelling allowances to the Applicant. The stage of divorce petition at Sangli is for evidence. Hence, requested to reject the Application.

¶21

I have heard both learned counsel. The Applicant stays at Solapur with her old age parents. Two proceedings are filed by her against the Respondent, which are pending at Solapur. In the petition filed by Respondent at Sangli, yet evidence has not been started. It is settled principle of law that convenience of the wife has to be looked into it.

¶22

In view of above, I pass following order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i. Application is allowed.

2/3

38-MCA-104-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

ii. The Marriage Petition pending at Family Court, Sangli

¶29

be transferred to Family Court, Solapur.

¶30

iii. Application is disposed of.

¶31

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶32

3/3

Seema Satish Thombare v. Satish Pandurang Thombare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Satish Thombare v. Satish Pandurang Thombare

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

Mr. Angad Chandrakant Thombare Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its Divisional Manager, Vs Sunil Kondaji Gulve and Anr.

Mrs. Sushama Shantaram Golambade Vs Mr. Bharat Jadhavji Vora (H.U.F.) and Anr.

Smt.Maya Himlal Khanal and Ors. Vs Mr. Lalit Madhu Sharma and Anr.

Madhuri Nilesh Dange Vs Nilesh Shivaji Dange

Sou. Shukranti Harshvardhan Shahpurkar Vs Shri Harshvardhan Venkatesh Shahpurkar