Allowed

Krutika Durgesh Sonawane v. Durgesh Prakash Sonawane

Bombay HC29 Apr 2024MCA/359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings from Pune to Nashik, citing distance over 200 km and absence of male family members to accompany her after her father's death. The court held that a wife's convenience prevails in transfer petitions and allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Divorce Petition P.A. No. 858 of 2022 transferred from Family Court, Pune to Family Court, Nashik.

Krutika Durgesh Sonawane Vs Durgesh Prakash Sonawane — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

28-MCA-359-2022.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 359 OF 2022

¶6

 Krutika Durgesh Sonawane… Applicant
 Versus
 Durgesh Prakash Sonawane...Respondent

¶7

Mr. S.C.Chandrate, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

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

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

2. None for the respondent.

¶12

3. This matter is kept back and again called out at 12:19 p.m. however none present for the applicant.

¶13

4.By this application, applicant is seeking transfer of divorce
proceeding pending before the Family Court at Pune to Family Court at
Nashik.

¶14

5. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant stays with her parents with Nashik. Recently her father has been passed away. There is no male member in the family of applicant to accompany her to attend the Court dates at Pune. The distance between Nashik to

¶15

1/2

¶16

28-MCA-359-2022.doc

¶17

S.S.Kilaje

¶18

Pune is more than 200 km. Hence requested to allow the application.

¶19

6.The affidavit in reply filed by the respondent shows that respondent
has denied the contention of the applicant. In reply it is further mentioned
that applicant has not mentioned the sound reason for transferring the
divorce petition, hence requested to reject the application.

¶20

7.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant stays at
Nashik with her parents. The distance between Nashik to Pune is more
than 200 km. There is no male member in her family to accompany her to
attend the Court dates at Pune. It is settled principle of law that
convenience of the wife has to be considered over the husband in case of
transfer petition.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

i. The application is allowed.

¶24

ii.Divorce Petition i.e. P. A No. 858 of 2022 pending
before the Family Court at Pune be transferred to
Family Court at Nashik.

¶25

9. The application is disposed of.

¶26

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶27

Digitally SONALI signed bySONALISATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: KILAJE 2024.04.3014:19:59 +0530

¶28

2/2

Krutika Durgesh Sonawane v. Durgesh Prakash Sonawane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krutika Durgesh Sonawane v. Durgesh Prakash Sonawane

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.