Allowed

Prachi Pramod Sasanekar v. Pramod Narayan Sasawnekar

Bombay HC29 Apr 2024MCA/270/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous civil application, the High Court of Bombay, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION allowed the transfer of proceedings from the Family Court at Alibaug to Family Court at Palghar. The court considered the applicant's residence and distance, applying the settled principle that the wife's convenience takes precedence over the husband's in transfer petitions.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed; Petition No. D-4 of 2022 pending before the Family Court at Alibaug be transferred to Family Court at Palghar.

Prachi Pramod Sasanekar Vs Pramod Narayan Sasawnekar — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

27-MCA-270-2022.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 270 OF 2022

¶6

 Prachi Pramod Sasanekar… Applicant
 Versus
 Pramod Narayan Sasawnekar...Respondent

¶7

Smt. Sangeeta Salvi a/w. Aseem Sharma, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. R. K. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 29th APRIL, 2024.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

1. By this application applicant is seeking transfer of the proceeding

¶11

pending before the Family Court at Alibaug to District Court at Palghar.

¶12

2. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant

¶13

stays at Palghar with two minor children. The distance between Palghar to
Alibaug is more than 100 km. Applicant is finding difficult to attend the
Court dates at Alibaug. Applicant has filed divorce proceeding and
proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act which are pending at
Palghar, hence requested to allow the application.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that applicant has suo motu left the matrimonial house of the respondent. Respondent had tried to settle the matter with the applicant but she is not ready. No grounds are

¶15

1/2

¶16

S.S.Kilaje27-MCA-270-2022.doc

¶17

mentioned to transfer the application, hence requested to reject the
application.

¶18

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. The proceedings filed by the
applicant are against the respondent are pending at Palghar. The distance
between Palghar to Alibaug is more than 100 km. It is settled principle of
law that convenience of the wife has to be considered over the husband in
case of transfer petition.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

i. The application is allowed.

¶22

ii.Petition No. D-4 of 2022 pending before the Family
Court at Alibaug be transferred to Family Court at
Palghar.

¶23

iii.Respondent can file application before the concerned
Court for appearance through video conference. The
concerned Court shall decide the said application on
its own merits.

¶24

6.The application is disposed of.

¶25

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH KILAJE SATISH Date: 2024.04.30 KILAJE 17:45:04+0530

¶27

2/2

Prachi Pramod Sasanekar v. Pramod Narayan Sasawnekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prachi Pramod Sasanekar v. Pramod Narayan Sasawnekar

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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Titus Jose and Anr.

Kalyani Chandrakant Ahire @ Kalyani Sampat Jadhav Vs Chandrakant Omkar Ahire

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through Its Corporate Office Vs Smt. Pushpa Ankush Suryawanshi and Ors.

Parul Hitendra Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, Thane vs Narayan Ganu Alam and Ors.

Shri. Sachin Dattatray Isapure vs Shri. Sunil Daulatrao Patil (D/H) 1A) Smt. Sangita Sunil Patil and Ors.