Allowed¶28

Meher Lavin Bhagnani Nee Heena Jairaj Issrani v. Lavin Raja Bhagnani

Bombay HC21 Mar 2025MCA/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial Section 9 proceeding; wife's transfer application MCA 3 of 2025; Petition No. A-1099 of 2024 moved from Family Court Bandra, Mumbai to Family Court Nashik; Section 24 CPC; Rule 6 Chapter I Bombay Appellate Side Rules 1960; Article 227 Constitution of India; consent-based transfer; video conference (VC) appearance by husband; mediation centre Nashik District Court; Rajesh S. Patil, J.; order dated 29.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Petition No. A-1099 of 2024 from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Nashik within four weeks; expeditious hearing at Nashik; respondent-husband may attend through VC (physically when required); liberty to both parties to approach the mediation centre of the Nashik District Court for appointment of a mediator. ¶28

Meher Lavin Bhagnani Nee Heena Jairaj Issrani vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Section 9 proceeding bearing Petition No. A-1099 of 2024, filed by the husband and pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, should be transferred to the Family Court at Nashik.

¶16

Court's answer

The Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), i.e., transfer of Petition No. A-1099 of 2024 from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Nashik.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai is directed to transfer the proceedings bearing Petition No. A-1099 of 2024 to the Family Court at Nashik within four weeks.

¶25

Key takeaways

After transfer, the learned Judge, Family Court, Nashik is directed to hear the proceedings expeditiously.ratio¶26
The respondent-husband is permitted to attend the hearings at the Family Court, Nashik through video conference (VC), and to attend physically whenever the Judge of the Family Court, Nashik finds it necessary.ratio¶27
Both parties are granted liberty to approach the mediation centre of the Nashik District Court for appointment of a mediator to resolve the disputes between them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) allowed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 3 of 2025 filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Rule 6 of Chapter I of the Bombay Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and — on the fair agreement of both learned counsel — directed transfer of the husband's Section 9 proceeding, Petition No. A-1099 of 2024, from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Nashik within four weeks. The Nashik Family Court was directed to hear the proceedings expeditiously; the respondent-husband was permitted to attend through video conference, attending physically whenever the Nashik judge found necessary; and both parties were granted liberty to approach the mediation centre of the Nashik District Court for appointment of a mediator.

¶1

MCA 3-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2025

¶4

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶5

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶6

Date: 2025.10.01 19:16:36 +0530

¶7

Meher Lavin Bhagnani Nee Heena Jairaj Issrani ..Applicant

Versus

Lavin Raja Bhagnani

..Respondent

Mr. Himanshu Nagarkar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr. Navin Prem Sachanandani, Advocate, for the Respondent

¶12

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶13

DATE : 29.09.2025

¶14

P. C.

¶15

This is a transfer Application filed by the Applicant, who is wife

¶16

of the Respondent, seeking transfer of Section 9 proceeding filed by the husband in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Nashik.

¶17

After the matter was argued for some time, both the learned Counsel fairly agree that the proceedings can be heard by the Family Court, Nashik.

¶18

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following Order.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(i) The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under :-

¶21

1 of 2

¶22

Anand

¶23

MCA 3-2025.doc

¶24

“This Hon'ble Court as per Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 r/w Rule 6 of Chapter I of Bombay Appellate Side Rules, 1960 a/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to transfer the proceedings bearing, Petition No. A-1099 of 2024 pending before the Ld. Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to Ld. Family Court, Nashik.”

¶25

(ii) The Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai is directed to transfer the proceedings bearing Petition NO. A-1099 of 2024, to the Family Court at Nashik within a period of four weeks from today.

¶26

(iii) After the proceedings are transferred, learned Judge, Family Court, Nashik is directed to hear the proceedings expeditiously.

¶27

(iv) The Respondent – husband is permitted to attend the hearing at Family Court, Nashik through VC and whenever found necessary by the Judge of Family Court, Nashik he would attend the proceedings physically in Court.

¶28

The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶29

Both the learned Counsel also submit that parties may be granted liberty to approach mediation centre of Nashik District Court for appointment of Mediator to resolve the disputes between them. Liberty as prayed for is granted.

¶30

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶31

2 of 2

¶32

Anand

Meher Lavin Bhagnani Nee Heena Jairaj Issrani v. Lavin Raja Bhagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meher Lavin Bhagnani Nee Heena Jairaj Issrani v. Lavin Raja Bhagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivaji Vilasrao Sawant vs State of Maharashtra

Kishor Kumar Thakur S/O Anand Kumar Thakur and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Kunal Suresh Gosavi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajitesh Chauhan vs Mrs. Sumit Kaur Malhotra

Ramdas Bharat Poplait @ Pravin Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Laxman Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra