Allowed

Mrs. Kaveri Achyut Kurlikar v. Achyut Suresh Kurlikar

Bombay HC7 Feb 2024MCA/415/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife working in Pune sought transfer of husband's divorce petition from Oros to Pune, over 300 km away. Holding that the convenience of the wife prevails in transfer matters, the court allowed the application and transferred the marriage petition to the Family Court, Pune.

What did the court decide?

Marriage Petition No.117 of 2022 transferred from Oros to Family Court, Pune; respondent may apply for video conferencing appearance.

Mrs. Kaveri Achyut Kurlikar Vs Achyut Suresh Kurlikar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

34-MCA-415-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2022

¶4

Mrs.Kaveri Achyut Kurlikar ….Applicant V/s. Achyut Suresh Kurlikar ….Respondent

¶5

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.02.08 18:41:09 +0530

¶6

Mr.Yogesh N. Naidu a/w Ms.Khushi Agarwal i/b Prasad Kulkarni & Associate, for the Applicant. Mr.Manoj Patil, for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶8

DATE : 7^th FEBRUARY 2024

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶11

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that, Applicant stays at Pune. She works in Pune. The RespondentHusband has filed Divorce Petition, which is pending at Oros, District-Sindudurgh. The Applicant is finding difficult to attend

¶12

the Court dates at Oros. Hence, requested to allow the Application.

¶13

The learned counsel for the Respondent-husband

¶14

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶15

34-MCA-415-2022.doc

¶16

submits that, the Respondent stays at Oros. He is doing work from home. No grounds are made out for transfer of Application. The Applicant’s native place is Gadhinglaj. She comes to visit her family members, she can attend Court dates. The Respondent is ready to provide travel expenses to the Applicant or she can attend through Video Conferencing. Hence, requested to reject the Application.

¶17

I have heard both learned counsel.

¶18

The Applicant works at Pune. The distance between Pune to Sindudhurgh is more than 300 km. The Applicant finding difficult to attend Court dates at Oros as she works at Pune. It is settled principal of law that at the time of the transferring of the Petition, the Court has to consider the convenience of wife over husband. Hence, I pass following order.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(i) Application is allowed.

¶21

(ii) The Marriage Petition No.117 of 2022 pending

¶22

before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Oros be transferred to Family Court, Pune.

¶23

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶24

34-MCA-415-2022.doc

¶25

(iii) The Respondent-Husband can file Application for appearance through Video Conferencing before the concerned Court, the said Court shall decide it on its own merits.

¶26

(iv) Both the parties to appear before the concerned Court on 11^th March 2023.

¶27

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶28

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Mrs. Kaveri Achyut Kurlikar v. Achyut Suresh Kurlikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Kaveri Achyut Kurlikar v. Achyut Suresh Kurlikar

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

Shri. Suresh Ambadas Pawar Vs Shri. Laxman Narayan Patole and Anr.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited through Its Officer Neeraj Kumar Jain Vs Mr.Ganesh Namdev Dagade and Anr.

The Regional Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Renuka Ravindra Khiste-Guardian-Asawari R. Khiste and Othrs

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Pune Vs Sushila Kisan Damase and Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd.through Mbro-Iii,Mumbai Third Party Hub Vs Kisan Narayan Changan and Ors.

Sou. Rani Jayant Bhangire Vs Shri. Dhananjay Chandrasen Deshmukh and Othrs