Allowed

Dipali Sudhakar Pawar v. Sudhakar Dnyandeo Pawar

Bombay HC22 Mar 2024MCA/111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings filed by her husband before the Civil Judge at Vita, Sangli, to the Family Court at Pune, citing her residence in Pune and lack of income. The court allowed the transfer, directing video-conference appearance for the husband where possible.

What did the court decide?

Hindu Marriage Petition No. 221 of 2022 transferred from Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vita, Sangli to Family Court, Pune, with directions for advance notice of adjournments and video-conference appea

Dipali Sudhakar Pawar vs Sudhakar Dnyandeo Pawar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

25-mca-111-2024.doc

¶2

hShubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2024

¶4

Dipali Sudhakar Pawar … Applicant

¶5

versus

¶6

Sudhakar Dnyandeo Pawar

¶7

…. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh , Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 22^nd JULY, 2024.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The present application is filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of divorce proceedings filed by the respondent- husband before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vita, District: Sangli to the Family Court at Pune.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant married the respondent on 15^th June 2001 and there is a child born out of the marriage. The applicant-wife along with her son aged 21 years is staying at Pune. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is a housewife and has no source of income and is dependent upon her family. He submits that the distance between Vita to Pune is 200 kms.. He also submits that the respondent-husband works in Pune and Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADASHANKAR SHANKARKADAM has filed divorce proceedings at Vita only to harass the applicant-wife and KADAM Date: 2024.07.24 14:26:06+0530 the native place of the respondent-husband is at Vita. The learned

¶13

1/2

¶14

25-mca-111-2024.doc

¶15

hShubhada S Kadam

¶16

counsel submits that it would be difficult for the applicant-wife to defend the proceedings at Vita. In view of the same, she seeks transfer of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband at Vita to the Family Court at Pune.

¶17

Having considered the submissions made and the respondent although served has not entered appearance, I deem it appropriate to transfer the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vita, District-Sangli to the Family Court at Pune. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) as under :

¶18

b. This Honble Court may be pleased to transfer the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 221 of 2022 pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vita, District: Sangli to the Family Court at Pune;

¶19

On such transfer, it is directed that the applicant-wife would not seek adjournments in the matter without informing the respondenthusband well in advance so to avoid inconvenience to the husband to travel to Pune, so also, the Family Court at Pune is directed to permit the respondent-husband to appear through video conferencing wherever possible.

¶20

With the above observation, the application is disposed of.

¶21

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)

¶22

2/2

Dipali Sudhakar Pawar v. Sudhakar Dnyandeo Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipali Sudhakar Pawar v. Sudhakar Dnyandeo Pawar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Rizvi Estates and Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai vs Bhoop Narayan v. Singh and Anr.

Balasaheb Gangadhar Deshmukh Died Lrs Kalpana and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector and Others

Sulyabai Motiram Patil Vs Mahesh Subhash Dhumal and Anr.

Mr. Yashwantrao Govindrao Ghorpade and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vandana Raju Kokane and Ors. vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Pune

Demabai Bapurao Rathod Vs Sk. Wall Chotemiya and Another