Allowed¶8

Priya Gaurav Deshmukh (Ms. Priya Vijay Khandare- Name before marriage) v. Gaurav Kishor Deshmukh

Bombay HC17 Jun 2025MCA/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife's convenience preferred over husband's in transfer of matrimonial suit; HMP 859/2024 moved from Family Court Nagpur to Family Court Pune; wife unemployed, 650 km travel would prejudice defence; husband's plea of aged/sick parents and WhatsApp-chat proof of wife's Bangaluru employment rejected; point of employment left open. Single Judge (R. M. Joshi, J.), 17 June 2025; no statute or precedent cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (A); Hindu Marriage Petition No.859/2024 transferred from the Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court, Pune. ¶8

Priya Gaurav Deshmukh (Ms. Priya Vijay Khandare- Name before marriage) Vs Gaurav Kishor Deshmukh — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (A); Hindu Marriage Petition No.859/2024 transferred from the Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court, Pune.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether Hindu Marriage Petition No.859/2024 should be transferred from the Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court, Pune on account of the applicant-wife's inconvenience. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

It is a settled position that the inconvenience of the wife should be considered over the inconvenience of the husband, if any.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

A transfer application can nonetheless be rejected where it is shown that it would become impossible for the husband to appear at the place of transfer, or where the application for transfer is found not to be bona fide.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Court accepted the applicant's specific case that she is unemployed and that travelling about 650 km to attend the proceedings at Nagpur would cause her inconvenience and ultimately affect her defence.ratio¶7
The respondent's grounds for opposing transfer — old age and sickness of his parents — did not outweigh the applicant's inconvenience, there being no incapacity of the respondent himself to travel from Nagpur to Pune.ratio¶7
The Court found no reason to accept the WhatsApp chats placed on record as establishing that the applicant works in a company at Bangaluru; for want of specific reliable material, that contention was not accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of matrimonial proceeding — Misc. Civil Application (TR) No.9 of 2025, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), R. M. Joshi, J. (17-06-2025): Wife-applicant sought transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No.859/2024 from Family Court, Nagpur to Family Court, Pune; she pleaded she is a Pune resident, unemployed, and that attending proceedings about 650 km away would seriously prejudice her defence. Husband opposed, citing old-aged and sick parents and relying on WhatsApp chats allegedly showing the wife's employment in a company at Bangaluru. Held: it is settled that the wife's inconvenience outweighs the husband's; transfer may be refused only where the husband cannot appear at the transferee forum or the application is not bona fide. No incapacity of the husband to travel was shown; the WhatsApp chats were rejected for want of reliable material (point left open to be substantiated elsewhere). Application allowed; petition transferred to Family Court, Pune.

¶1

mca9.25.O.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (TR) NO.9 OF 2025

¶5

(Mrs. Priya Gaurav Deshmukh (Ms. Priya Vijay Khandare Name before marriage) Vs. Gaurav Kishor Deshmukh)

¶6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar’s Orders.

¶7

Mr. Kanaad Aphale, Advocate for Applicant thr. V.C. Mr. P. N. Upadhyay, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE: 17th JUNE, 2025.

¶9

This application is for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No.859/2024 from the Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court, Pune.

¶10

The contention of the applicant that she is resident of Pune. It is claimed that she is staying in Pune as a paying guest. It is her contention that the applicant and non-applicant were cohabiting in the premises situated at Pimpri-Chinchwad, but matrimonial proceedings is tried at Nagpur. It is her contention that at present she is unemployed and it is not possible for her to attend the proceedings filed by the non-applicant – husband at Nagpur which is a distance of about 650 km.

¶11

Non-Applicant has opposed the application by contending that there is no reason or justification for the transfer. It is also claimed that the parents of the

¶12

mca9.25.O.odt

¶13

¶14

non-applicant are old aged and that his father is suffering from heart disease. It is also sought to be claimed by the non-applicant that the applicant is employed in a company at Bangaluru and to support the same, reliance is sought to be placed on WhatsApp communication between the parties.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that it is not correct that the applicant is employed at Bangaluru. He claims that the applicant is unemployed for now. It is his submission that asking the applicant to appear before the Family Court, Nagpur from Pune will cause serious prejudice to her defence.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicant submits that there is no impediment to rely upon the WhatsApp messages which according to him indicate that the applicant has a job at Bangaluru. It is his further submission that the applicant is permanent resident of Chipulan. It is his argument that merely because application is filed, without any justified reason no transfer should be effected of proceeding from one place to another.

¶17

It is settled position that the inconvenience of the wife should be considered over the inconvenience of the husband, if any. No doubt, in a given case where it is shown that it would become impossible for husband to appear in the proceedings at place of transfer, or where it is found that the application for transfer is not bona fide, the same can be rejected.

¶18

mca9.25.O.odt

¶19

¶20

Herein this case the applicant who is a lady and come out with specific case that she is unemployed and that could cause inconvenience for her to travel 650 km. to attend the proceeding at Nagpur and which would ultimately affect her defence in the proceeding. As against this the non-applicant has shown the cause for non-transfer of the proceedings on the ground of old aged and sick parents. This is not the case wherein there is incapacity of the non-applicant himself to travel from Nagpur to Pune. This Court finds no reason to accept the WhatsApp chats has placed on Court to hold that the applicant in working in a company at Bangaluru. At this stage for want of any specific reliable material the said contention is not accepted. It is however, left open to the party to substantiate such contention in the appropriate proceeding.

¶21

In view of above decision, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).

¶22

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶23

NSN

Priya Gaurav Deshmukh (Ms. Priya Vijay Khandare- Name before marriage) v. Gaurav Kishor Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Gaurav Deshmukh (Ms. Priya Vijay Khandare- Name before marriage) v. Gaurav Kishor Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raviraj Investment and Strategies Thr. Proprietor, Rajesh S/O Suresh Joshi vs Smt. Namita Satish Rai

Shivram Bhimrao Deshmukh and Others vs Sub Divisional Officer, Malkapur, Buldhana and Others

Camel Vidya Jyoti Socity. Thr. Manager, Nagpur and Anr. Vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and 2 Otrs

Lalita Devrao Thakare and Another Vs Sumandas Anandrao Amborkar and Others

Sheikh Rehman Sheikh Suleman Vs the Tahsildar, Bhandara and Another

Mah. Elektrosmelt Ltd. (a Subsidiary of Steel Auth. of India Ltd.) Thr. Its Company Secretary Vs Kisan Chintaram Sahu and Oths