Allowed¶3]

Rupali Aniket Ingale v. Aniket Anand Ingale

Bombay HC5 Jan 2024MCA/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of marriage petition; Marriage Petition A-No.656/2023 moved from Family Court Pune to Family Court Osmanabad; Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2024 allowed in terms of prayer clause-B; applicant-wife custody of child, residing with parents, no independent income; PWDVA proceedings before JMFC Osmanabad; respondent-husband attends Osmanabad proceedings; conditions: common dates, no adjournments without notice; referral to mediation; Aurangabad Bench; Arun R. Pedneker, J.; 15.10.2024.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Marriage Petition A-No.656/2023 from the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Osmanabad, granted in terms of prayer clause-B, with conditions that the applicant-wife seek common dates and avoid adjournments without advance notice, and a direction to the Family Court at Osmanabad to refer the parties to mediation.

Rupali Aniket Ingale vs Aniket Anand Ingale — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶3]

Issue for consideration

Whether Marriage Petition A-No.656/2023 pending before the Family Court at Pune should be transferred to the Family Court at Osmanabad.

¶1]

Court's answer

The Misc. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B, i.e., Marriage Petition A-No.656/2023 is transferred from the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Osmanabad, considering the applicant's submissions and the absence of strong contrary reasons from the respondent-husband.

¶3]

Ratio / Principle

On transfer, the applicant-wife is directed to seek common dates in all proceedings before the Court at Osmanabad and not to take unnecessary adjournments without informing the husband well in advance, so as to avoid inconvenience to the respondent-husband.

¶4]

Key takeaways

The Family Court at Osmanabad is directed to give the parties one more opportunity and to refer the parties for mediation.ratio¶5]

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), by order dated 15.10.2024 (Arun R. Pedneker, J.), allowed Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2024 (Rupali Aniket Ingale v. Aniket Anand Ingale) in terms of prayer clause-B, transferring Marriage Petition A-No.656/2023 from the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Osmanabad. Grounds considered: the applicant-wife has custody of the child born of the marriage solemnized on 27.05.2018, resides with her parents due to matrimonial dispute, has no independent source of income, and already conducts PWDVA proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad, which the respondent-husband attends; no strong contrary reasons were advanced by the respondent-husband. Conditions imposed: the applicant-wife to seek common dates in all Osmanabad proceedings and refrain from unnecessary adjournments without informing the husband well in advance; the Family Court at Osmanabad directed to give the parties one more opportunity and refer them for mediation.

¶1

¶2

01.24MCA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

934 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2024

¶5

RUPALI ANIKET INGALE VERSUS ANIKET ANAND INGALE

¶6

Advocate for the applicant : Mr. Amol T. Jagtap Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh S. Kulkarni

¶7

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 15.10.2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1] By the present application, the applicant seeks transfer of Marriage Petition A-No.656/2023 from the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Osmanabad.

¶10

2] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 27.05.2018 and one child is born out of the said wedlock. The applicant has custody of the child. The learned counsel further submits that due to matrimonial dispute, the applicant along with child is residing with her parents and that the applicant has no independent source of income. The applicant has initiated PWDVA proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad and the respondent-husband has

¶11

¶12

01.24MCA

¶13

appeared in the said proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent-husband has initiated Marriage Petition No. 656/2023 before the Family Court at Pune. The learned counsel further submits that it would be difficult for the applicant to conduct the proceedings at Pune as the applicant has no source of income, whereas the respondent-husband can conduct the proceedings initiated by him at Osmanabad. The respondent-husband is already attending the proceedings at Osmanabad.

¶14

3] Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and there is no strong contrary reasons given by the respondent-husband, the present Misc. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B.

¶15

4] However, on such transfer, it is directed that the applicant-wife would seek common dates in all the proceedings before the Court at Osmanabad and the applicant will not take unnecessary adjournments in the matter without informing the husband well in advance so as to avoid inconvenience to the respondent husband.

¶16

5] The Family Court at Osmanabad is directed to give one more opportunity to the parties and to refer the parties for mediation.

¶17

¶18

01.24MCA

¶19

6] With the above observations, the Misc. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶20

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶21

DDC

Rupali Aniket Ingale v. Aniket Anand Ingale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Aniket Ingale v. Aniket Anand Ingale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivajirao Maruti Nalawade Vs Shamsundar Madanlal Bangad and Ors.

Ruchika Kamlesh Jaiswal and Others Vs Bhagwan Sharad Joshi and Others

Sukshala Subrao Savant and Ors. Vs Nagnath Hanumant Yadav and Ors.

Sau. Sonam W/O Tushar Jaiswal Vs Tushar S/O Bhattulal Jaiswal

Gunwant Bajirao Savargave Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Latur and Anr.

Varsha Rahul Walvante Vs Rahul Sahebrao Walvante