Madhuri W/O Sandeep Raut Vs Sandeep S/O Pundlik Raut

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:12603

¶2

1 MCA 28.25

¶3

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

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION [TR] NO.28 OF 2025

¶5

Mrs. Madhuri w/o Sandeep Raut, Aged about 37 years, Occupation-Housewife, R/o. C/o. Smt. Asha Otari, Jai Malhar Colony, Near Kalika Temple, Wadala Gaon, Tah. & Dist. Nashik. .. Applicant ..Versus..

¶6

Sandeep s/o Pundlik Raut, Aged about 44 years, Occupation-Private, R/o. Room No.7, Ghanrkul F Building, Vyankatesh Nagar, K.D.K. College Road, Nandanwan, Nagpur. .. Non-Applicant

¶7

Mrs. Swati Kulkarni/Potey, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate for Non-Applicant.

¶8

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 18.11.2025.

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

Heard. By the consent of both the parties, this matter

¶11

is taken up for final hearing.

¶12

2 MCA 28.25

¶13

The applicant, by way of present application, seeking the transfer of the proceeding bearing A Petition No.1447/2023 pending before the Family Court, Nagpur to the Family Court, Nashik.

¶14

According to the applicant, applicant is residing at Nashik after there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties. She stated that she is not having any earning source and, therefore, it is difficult for her to attend the proceeding from Nashik to Nagpur. Therefore, she prayed that the proceeding filed by the non-applicant-husband be transferred from Family Court, Nagpur to Family Court, Nashik.

¶15

In response to the notice issued by this court, the nonapplicant appeared in the matter. He has stated that out of the wedlock, they have one son and one daughter. Son is of 15 years old and daughter is of 12 years old. He is taking all care of his children. There is no one in his family to look after the children. As such, it is submission of the non-applicant that it will be difficult for him to attend the proceeding at Nashik if same are transferred. He also pointed out that there will be no one to take care of the children at Nagpur.

¶16

3 MCA 28.25

¶17

After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that the present applicant can attend the proceeding at Nagpur if the non-applicant pays her the travelling charges on the date on which she attend the proceeding at Nagpur. Furthermore, now a days video conference facility is made available in the Family Court and the party can appear through video conference the dates on which the matter is fixed. At the time

¶18

of recording the evidence or for any special reasons, the physical presence of the applicant can be secured in the matter before the Family Court, Nagpur. Hence, considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that the following order will sub-serve the purpose in the matter. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(1) The application is partly allowed.

¶21

(2) The applicant is permitted to attend the proceeding bearing A Petition No.1444/2023 before the Family Court, Nagpur through video conference.

¶22

(3) It is made clear that the applicant should procure her physical presence before the Family Court, Nagpur as and when

¶23

4 MCA 28.25

¶24

required in the matter.

¶25

(4) The non-applicant shall pay Rs.5,000/- towards travelling charges to the applicant as and when she attend the proceeding before Family Court, Nagpur and the said amount should be paid on or before the date fixed before the Family Court, Nagpur.

¶26

(5) In above terms, the application stands disposed of..

¶27

(Pravin S. Patil, J.)

¶28

Gulande

Madhuri W/O Sandeep Raut v. Sandeep S/O Pundlik Raut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri W/O Sandeep Raut v. Sandeep S/O Pundlik Raut

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

Mrs. Anuja Rahul Patil vs Shri. Rahul S/O Moreshwar Patil

Bebitai Dinkar Garje vs National Highways Authority of India Proj. Implementation Unit-Washim Thr. in-Charge N.H.a.Amravati

Shri Ramchand S/O Kundanmalji Hurkat, Nagpur Vs M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Wardha and 2 Otrs

Dr. Suhas Ravindra Ingale vs the State of Maharashtra, through Pso, Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola, Tahsil and District Akola

I.C.I.C.I Lombard Motor Insurance,Chandrapur through Branch Manager Vs Smt. Geeta Wd/O Nitesh @ Nitin Wankhede and 3 Others

Sau. Tejashree W/O Amey Waghmare Vs Amey S/O Sanjay Waghmare