Allowed

Sau. Pratima Pankaj Kanas v. Shri Pankaj Digambar Kanas

Bombay HC26 Mar 2024MCA/95/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition from Family Court Bandra to Karmala under Section 24 CPC, citing pending restitution and domestic violence cases there and travel hardship. Court held the wife's convenience prevails in matrimonial disputes and allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Marriage Petition No.A-1117/2022 transferred from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to Civil Judge Senior Division, Karmala, Dist. Solapur.

Sau. Pratima Pankaj Kanas vs Shri Pankaj Digambar Kanas — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9-MCA-95-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2024

¶4

Sau. Pratima Pankaj Kanas ...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Pankaj Digambar Kanas ...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rajesh S. Jadhav, for the Applicant.

¶8

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 5^th AUGUST 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant-wife is seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No.A-1117/2022 filed by the respondent-husband for divorce from the file of Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the file of Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Karmala, Dist.Solapur.

¶11

In spite of service, none appears for the Respondenthusband.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2024.08.06 14:58:13 +0530

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, before the Civil Judge Senior Division

¶15

Sajakali Jamadar

¶16

9-MCA-95-2024.DOC

¶17

Karmala, Dist.Solapur. It is submitted that in addition to petition for restitution of congugal rights, the applicant has also filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the same is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Karmala. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for attending the ptition in question, the applicant is required to travel 14 hours. It is submitted that there is no male member in the family of the applicant to accompany her to Mumbai.

¶18

It is well settled that normally in the cases arising out of matrimonial dispute, the convience of the wife is to be seen. It appears that the husband is attenidng two cases filed by the wife in the Courts at Karmala. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, following order is passed:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i) Misc. Civil Application No. 95 Of 2024 is allowed; ii) The Family Court, Bandra Mumbai shall transfer Marriage Petition No.A-1117/2022 pending on it’s file to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Karmala, Dist.Solapur.

¶21

iii) Application is disposed off accordingly.

¶22

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Sajakali Jamadar

Sau. Pratima Pankaj Kanas v. Shri Pankaj Digambar Kanas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Pratima Pankaj Kanas v. Shri Pankaj Digambar Kanas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Vimlabai Wd/O Laxmanprasad Shrivas vs Smt. Shashikala D/O Parmeshwardin Shrivas Thr. P.O.a., Imran S/O Aftab Khan and Others

Shipra Arvind Khorgade vs the Naib-Tahsildar, Saoner, Nagpur

Shipra Arvind Khorgade vs Vijay Kohle, the Naib-Tahsildar, Soaner, Nagpur

Akola,Amravati,Buldhana,Washim Zilla Jangal Kamgar Sah. Sansthan Cha Sangh Marya.,Thr.Pres. and Anr. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati and Another

Shirish S/O Ravi Bagde vs Smt. Farha W/O Shirish Bagde, Farhat D/O Tanvir Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Maiden Name)

Rachana Shrikant Desai and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.