Allowed

Mrs Neha Schin Ingle @ Miss Neha Kamalakar Khandare v. Sachin Bhimrao Ingle

Bombay HC23 Apr 2024MCA/282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court Bench allowed an application for transferring a divorce petition from the Family Court at Aurangabad to C.J.S.D. at Belapur, citing the applicant's residence, lack of income, minor child, and the unsettled legal principle that the wife's convenience takes precedence.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Petition No. A/173/2023 from Family Court, Aurangabad to C.J.S.D., Belapur.

Mrs Neha Schin Ingle @ Miss Neha Kamalakar Khandare… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

11-MCA-282-23.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2023

¶6

Neha Sachin Ingle @ Miss Neha Kamalakar Khandare… Applicant
 Versus
Sachin Bhimrao Ingle ...Respondent

¶7

Ms. Seema Raut i/b. Ms. Pooja Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Jaymangal Dhanraj a/w. Mr. Aditya Waghate, Advocate for
Respondent.

¶8

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

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. By this application, applicant is seeking transfer of divorce petition

¶11

pending before the Family Court at Aurangabad to C.J.S.D., Belapur.

¶12

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant
stays at Belapur with her minor child and parents. Applicant has no

¶13

source of income. The distance between Belapur to Aurangabad is more
than 300 km. Applicant is finding difficult to attend the Court dates at
Aurangabad, hence requested to allow the application.

¶14

3.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no sound reasons
are given by the applicant for transfer of the petition. Respondent is ready
to pay traveling expenses to the applicant to attend the Court dates at
Aurangabad. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that

¶15

1/3

¶16

11-MCA-282-23.doc

¶17

S.S.Kilaje

¶18

applicant is down with the spinal injury, the doctor has advised him not to
travel. When he was down with ailment, the applicant had left his
company. The respondent is not in a position to travel to Belapur, hence
requested to reject the application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent relied on :

¶20

(a) Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 ;

¶21

(b) Delma Lubna Coelho Vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes 2023 SCC OnLine SC 440.

¶22

4.I have heard both the learned Counsel. I have gone through the case
laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the present case
applicant stays with her 11 year old child. She has no source of income.
The applicant is finding it difficult to attend the Court dates at
Aurangabad. There is no male member in her family to accompany her to
attend the Court dates at Aurangabad. Hence the facts of cited case and
present case are different. The distance between the Belapur to
Aurangabad is more than 300 km. It is settled law that convenience of
wife has to be considered over husband in case of transfer petition.

¶23

5. In view of above, I pass following Order.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i. The application is allowed.

¶26

ii.Petition No.A/173/2023 pending before the Family
Court at Aurangabad be transfer to C.J.S.D., Belapur.

¶27

2/3

¶28

11-MCA-282-23.doc

¶29

S.S.Kilaje

¶30

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

¶31

6. The application is disposed of.

¶32

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶33

Digitally
SONALI signed bySONALISATISH
SATISH KILAJE
KILAJE Date:2024.04.25
17:56:38
+0530

¶34

3/3

Mrs Neha Schin Ingle @ Miss Neha Kamalakar Khandare v. Sachin Bhimrao Ingle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Neha Schin Ingle @ Miss Neha Kamalakar Khandare v. Sachin Bhimrao Ingle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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.

Priyanka Vishwas Sapkal Vs Vihwas Shankar Sakpal