Allowed

Priyanka Vishwas Sapkal v. Vihwas Shankar Sakpal

Bombay HC23 Apr 2024MCA/112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's restitution of conjugal rights petition from Panvel to Kolhapur, citing a 300 km distance, a two-year-old child and no independent income. The court held the wife's convenience governs transfer petitions and allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Marriage Petition No. 502 of 2023 pending before C.J.S.D., Panvel transferred to C.J.S.D., Kolhapur.

Priyanka Vishwas Sapkal Vs Vihwas Shankar Sakpal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

47-MCA-112-24.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2024

¶6

Priyanka Vishwas Sapkal … Applicant

¶7

 Versus

¶8

Vishwas Shankar Sapkal ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Anup Kamble i/b. Mr. Gaurav Nankar and Mr. Aditya Raktade,
Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. Vishwas S. Sapkal, Respondent present-in-person.

¶11

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2024.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

1. Leave to amend forthwith.

¶14

2. By this application, applicant is seeking transfer of Petition for

¶15

restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent pending before
C.J.S.D. Panvel to C.J.S.D., Kolhapur.

¶16

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant stays with her two year old child at Panhala, District - Kolhapur. Applicant has no source of income. The distance between Panhala to Panvel is 300

¶17

km. Applicant finding it difficult to attend the Court dates at Panvel,
hence requested to allow the application.

¶18

4. Respondent personally present before the Court. This Court

¶19

enquired with him about the transfer of proceeding, he submits that he

¶20

1/2

¶21

47-MCA-112-24.doc

¶22

S.S.Kilaje

¶23

had earlier filed Petition for restitution of conjugal right thereafter to
counter it, applicant has filed D.V. proceeding at Kolhapur but he has no
financial condition to attend the Court dates at Kolhapur. Hence,
requested to reject the application.

¶24

5.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and respondent
present in person. Applicant stays with two year old child at Panhala,
District-Kolhapur. The distance between Kolhapur to Panvel is 300 km.
The applicant has no source of income. She is finding difficult to attend
the Court dates at Panvel. It is settled law that convenience of wife should
be taken into consideration while deciding the transfer Petition.

¶25

6. In view of the above, I pass following order.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i. The Application is allowed.

¶28

ii.Marriage Petition No. 502 of 2023 pending before the
C.J.S.D. Panvel be transferred to C.J.S.D., Kolhapur..

¶29

7. The application is disposed of.

¶30

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶31

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2024.04.25 KILAJE 11:24:07 +0530

¶32

2/2

Priyanka Vishwas Sapkal v. Vihwas Shankar Sakpal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Vishwas Sapkal v. Vihwas Shankar Sakpal

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

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs Shabana Iqbal Sayed and Ors.

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Andheri(E) Vs Swati Atul Shende and Ors.

Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shantabai Bandu Shinde and Ors.

Seema Anil Khopade Vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs Mrs. Indravatidevi Gulab Yadav and Ors.

Mrs Neha Schin Ingle @ Miss Neha Kamalakar Khandare Vs Sachin Bhimrao Ingle