Dismissed¶10

gautam prakash govirikar v. Vrishali Gautam Govitrikar

Bombay HC11 Sept 2025MCA/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 5 of 2025; transfer of D.V. proceedings; JMFC Pune to Family Court Pune; husband's transfer application rejected; wife's convenience; N.C.V. Aishwarya, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; Section 24 CPC; D.V. Act Sections 12, 18-22, 26 (choice of forum); interim maintenance Rs.30,000/- per month; outstanding Rs.7,80,000/- / Rs.2,50,000/-; mediation demand Rs.5,00,000/-; interim Diwali access to Singapore, order dated 14 October 2025; Rajesh S. Patil, J.; decided 16 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the overall conduct of the applicant-husband, the Court is not convinced that the transfer application should be allowed. ¶7

gautam prakash govirikar vs Vrishali Gautam Govitrikar — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/5

¶3

915 - MCA 5 OF 2025.doc

¶4

Digitally signed KANCHAN by KANCHAN VINOD VINODMAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2025.10.18 14:37:06 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2025

¶8

Gautam Prakash Govitrikar ….. Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Vrishali Gauram Govitrikar ….. Respondent

¶11

Ms. Rutuja Khavinsara (Thr. V.C.) a/w. Mr.Vaibhav Thorave for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Rohit D. Joshi for the Respondent.

¶13

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶14

DATE : 16 OCTOBER, 2025

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

The present transfer proceeding is filed by the applicant,

¶17

husband of the respondent, seeking transfer of the D.V. proceedings

¶18

filed by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune to the Family Court, Pune.

¶19

Both the parties are doctors by profession and there are

¶20

two children born out of their wedlock. The custody of both the children as of now is with the respondent-wife. In the divorce proceeding filed by the wife, there is interim order of maintenance passed on 23 May, 2025, which grants interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month for the two children and it is submitted before

¶21

KVM

¶22

2/5

¶23

915 - MCA 5 OF 2025.doc

¶24

me that as of now, there is outstanding amount of Rs.7,80,000/-. However, the applicant-husband has claimed an adjustment of amounts which has voluntarily paid.

¶25

Mr.Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondentwife submitted that such adjustment could not be done as there is no such direction from the Family Court Judge who has passed the order. However, even if such an adjournment is presumed, even then the outstanding amount is Rs.2,50,000/- which the applicant-husband

¶26

refused to pay. The said order dated 23 May, 2025 according to Mr.Joshi is not challenged by the wife as the applicant-husband is now suffering from cancer.

¶27

It is further submitted before me that the applicanthusband as of now is in Germany for treatment and while the the mediation was going before the District Family Court, Pune, the husband preferred an application for interim access for Diwali Vacation of two children. By an order passed on 14 October, 2025, both the children were permitted to go alongwith paternal grandfather of the children to Singapore for a period from 18 October 2025 to 24 October 2025 and the applicant who is father of the children would fly from Germany to Singapore to be with the children.

¶28

It is submitted that the said order passed by the Family

¶29

KVM

¶30

3/5

¶31

915 - MCA 5 OF 2025.doc

¶32

Court on 14 October, 2025 has been challenged by the respondentwife and the matter has been kept today at 3:00 p.m. for urgent hearing in this Hon’ble Court before the Judge taking up Family Court matters.

¶33

Mr.Joshi also further submitted that as far as mediation is concerned, before the mediator in the last month, while issues were discussed, the applicant-husband claimed that the respondent-wife should pay him Rs.5,00,000/- for settling the matter between the parties.

¶34

Taking into consideration the overall conduct of the applicant-husband, I am not convinced that this transfer application should be allowed.

¶35

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199

¶36

has held that the convenience of the wife has to be seen for the transfer proceedings. Paragraph no.9 of the said judgment reads as under :-

¶37

The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the

¶38

KVM

¶39

4/5

¶40

915 - MCA 5 OF 2025.doc

¶41

spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

¶42

(Emphasis supplied)

¶43

So also I have taken a view in my judgment in case of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs. Abhijeet Narayan Kandage & Ors. in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 239 of 2024 dated 15 September, 2025 and in particular paragraph nos. 15 and 15.2 reads as under :-

¶44

Considering the Sections of D.V. Act, and the Judgments discussed in the above paragraphs, it becomes evident that Family Court has power to decide complaint which seeks relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act. Hence in my opinion, transfer of proceedings from Magistrate’s Court to Family Court pertaining to relief claimed under Section 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act can be allowed. However, if a transfer proceedings is not a bonafide one, then on merits such a transfer on case to case basis can be rejected. One has to also keep in mind the stage of the proceedings of which transfer is sought.

¶45

15.2) So also, one has to also keep in mind who is coming to the court for the transfer of the proceedings, whether it is the Wife or the Husband or any other party. Since a choice is given to the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act to choose the forum for reliefs sought under Section 18 to 22, (i.e.) before the Magistrate under Section 12 or to the civil court, family court or criminal court under Section 26, such transfer if sought by a Wife,

¶46

KVM

¶47

5/5

¶48

915 - MCA 5 OF 2025.doc

¶49

considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra) will have to be considered favourably.

¶50

Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra) and hence I am of the view that this Miscellaneous Civil Application requires to be rejected.

¶51

The present Miscellaneous Civil Application stands

¶52

rejected.

¶53

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

gautam prakash govirikar v. Vrishali Gautam Govitrikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

gautam prakash govirikar v. Vrishali Gautam Govitrikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Namdeo Gharat vs the State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer), Raigad and Anr.

Mrs.Namrata Paresh Wankhede vs Paresh Bhagwant Wankhede

Swati Rahul Puri vs Rahul Badrinarayan Puri

Urrmila Desai vs Mantri Metallics Private Limited

Mohammed Lliyas S Quershi vs Allwyn Gonsalves and 3 Other

Jawaher Singh S/O. Shri. Ramnath vs Union of India Thr. Its. Secretary and Anr.