Allowed

Radika Sachin Sadolkar v. Sachin Balakrishna Sadolkar

Bombay HC18 Mar 2024MCA/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a miscellaneous civil application seeking transfer of a pending divorce petition from the Family Court at Kolhapur to the Family Court at Thane, citing the applicant's residence with her minor son in Thane and the impracticality of traveling 400 km.

What did the court decide?

The Marriage Petition filed by the respondent before the Family Court at Kolhapur was transferred to the Family Court at Thane.

Radika Sachin Sadolkar Vs Sachin Balakrishna Sadolkar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

44-MCA-20-2024.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2024

¶6

Radika Sachin Sadolkar… Applicant

¶7

 Versus

¶8

Sachin Balakrishna Sadolkar...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sagar Joshi, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Paras Yadav, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 18th MARCH, 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for

¶13

the respondent.

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the respondent tendered affidavit in reply.
The same is taken on record.

¶15

3.By this application, the applicant is seeking transfer of Divorce
Petition filed by the respondent-husband which is pending before the
Family Court at Kolhapur to Family Court at Thane.

¶16

4.It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant stays with her minor son at Thane. It is finding difficult to the
applicant to attend the Court dates at Kolhapur which is more than 400

¶17

1/3

¶18

44-MCA-20-2024.doc

¶19

S.S.Kilaje

¶20

km at Kolhapur. The applicant has no source of income. By her income
she barely maintains herself and her child. She has no extra source of
income to travel to attend the Court dates at Kolhapur, hence, requested
to allow the application.

¶21

5.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the affidavit of
examination in chief is filed before the Family Court at Kolhapur. The
respondent is ready to pay the traveling expenses to the applicant. The
applicant can attend the Court proceedings through video conferencing.
Hence requested to reject the application.

¶22

6.I have heard both the learned counsel. The applicant stays with
her minor son at Thane. She is maintaining herself and her son by her
own income. The distance between Thane to Kolhapur is more than 400
km. It is finding difficult her to attend the Court dates at Kolhapur. It is
settled principle of law that convenience of wife has to be considered over
the husband in case of transfer petition.

¶23

7. In view of the above, I pass following order:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(i) The application is allowed.

¶26

(ii) Marriage Petition No. A-316 of 2022 pending before the Family
Court at Kolhapur be transferred to Family Court at Thane.
Both the parties to appear before the Family Court at Thane on

¶27

2/3

¶28

44-MCA-20-2024.doc

¶29

S.S.Kilaje

¶30

15.04.2024. Respondent can file application before the Family

¶31

Court at Thane for appearance through video conferencing.

¶32

The said Court shall decide the application on its own merit.

¶33

(iii) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶34

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:2024.03.20 KILAJE 10:48:52+0530

¶35

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶36

3/3

Radika Sachin Sadolkar v. Sachin Balakrishna Sadolkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radika Sachin Sadolkar v. Sachin Balakrishna Sadolkar

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

Annaso Jinu Bele (Dec) Thr. Lrs. Sanjay Annaso Bele Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

The General Manager, Best Vs Krince Pramod Pagare

Pratapsinha Sarjerao Patil Vs State of Maharashtra

The Manager the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through Mro Ii. vs Smt. Laxmi Ramesh Shirale and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Sugandha Waman Belanekar and Ors.

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller, Thane vs Mr. Pandurang Rajaram Tembhe