Allowed¶39

Prachi Rohan Ghuge v. Rohan Manoj Ghuge

Bombay HC15 Oct 2025MCA/343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife's transfer application (MCA 343/2025, Bombay HC, Patil J., 22.12.2025) to move divorce proceeding Civil M.A. 68/2025 from Family Court Pune (c. 200 km away) to CJSD Vasai, Dist. Palghar, allowed on the wife's-convenience principle (S. 24 CPC; N.C.V. Aishwarya, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199). Respondent influential businessman, not paying maintenance; served by speed post/email but avoiding attendance (roznama evidence); bail-order record showed obstruction of investigation; transfer directed within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the divorce proceeding, Civil M. A. No. 68 of 2025, pending before the learned Family Court, Pune to the learned CJSD, Vasai, District – Palghar, within a period of four weeks, in terms of prayer clause (a). ¶39

Prachi Rohan Ghuge vs Rohan Manoj Ghuge — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether, despite office remarks indicating that service could not be effected, the Respondent had in fact been served and was deliberately avoiding attendance, so that the hearing of the MCA could proceed. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Respondent had been duly served (affidavit of service dated 10.11.2025 proving service by speed post and email); although office remarks suggested otherwise, the Family Court, Pune roznamas dated 28.10.2025 and 28.11.2025 show the Respondent and his Advocate were present at hearings, proving that the Respondent, an influential person, is trying to avoid attending the present Court proceeding; hence the Court had no other option but to proceed with the hearing of the MCA.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N. C. V. Aishwarya (Supra) — that in matrimonial matters generally it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer — together with the facts of the present case (Respondent a businessman and influential person not paying maintenance; Applicant entirely dependent on her parents monetarily and emotionally; the Pune proceeding around 200 Km away with no male family member able to accompany her and return the same day; fear of physical harm from the Respondent), a case is made out to allow the MCA.

¶38

Key takeaways

The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), and the proceeding, Civil M. A. No. 68 of 2025, pending before the learned Family Court, Pune is directed to be transferred to the learned CJSD, Vasai, District – Palghar within four weeks.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), RAJESH S. PATIL, J.; MCA No. 343 of 2025, decided 22.12.2025. The Applicant-wife sought transfer of the divorce proceeding, Civil M. A. No. 68 of 2025, from the learned Family Court, Pune (about 200 Km away from Virar) to the learned CJSD, Vasai, District – Palghar. Although office remarks indicated that service could not be effected (the Respondent said to have shifted residence to Beed), an affidavit of service dated 10.11.2025 proved service by speed post and email, and the Family Court, Pune roznamas of 28.10.2025 and 28.11.2025 recorded the Respondent and his Advocate as present at hearings — showing that the influential Respondent was deliberately avoiding attendance; an order dated 15.07.2025 below Exh. 4 in Cri. B. A. No. 1014 of 2025 (ASJ-2, Vasai) further recorded the accused, accompanied by an influential person, threatening the I.O. and obstructing investigation. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 (Section 24 CPC — in matrimonial transfer pleas, generally the wife's convenience must be looked at), and noting non-payment of maintenance, the Applicant's complete dependence on her parents, the absence of any male family member to accompany her and return the same day, and fear of physical harm, the Court held a case was made out, allowed the MCA in terms of prayer clause (a), and directed transfer of the proceeding to the CJSD, Vasai within four weeks.

¶1

MCA 343-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2025

Prachi Rohan Ghuge

..Applicant

Versus

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶8

Rohan Manoj Ghuge

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Ms. Tasmiya Khan i/b. Mr. Saif Mobhani, Advocates, for the Applicant

¶11

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2025.12.23 19:44:43 +0530

¶13

DATE : 22.12.2025

¶14

P. C.

¶15

Ms. Khan, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that by an Affidavit of service dated 10.11.2025, it has been proved that the Respondent has been served via speed post and email.

¶16

1.1 She further submits that though office remarks show that service could not be effected on the Respondent due to Respondent having changed his residence to Beed. However, the Family Court, Pune’s roznamas dated 28.10.2025 and 28.11.2025 show that the Respondent and his Advocate were present at the date of hearing, where in Writ of this Court granting ad-interim relief order in transfer proceeding has been duly mentioned. Therefore, it proves that though served, the Respondent is avoiding to attend the Court proceeding.

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

Anand

¶19

MCA 343-2025.doc

¶20

1.2 She further showed me the impugned Order dated 15.07.2025

¶21

passed below Exh. 4 in Cri. B. A. No. 1014 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 2, Vasai. The third line of para 2 of the aforesaid order reads as under :-

¶22

“ ……. It is informed by the I. O. that the accused had accompanied one influential person with them who threatened the I. O. and not allowed him to make the necessary investigation. Even a note of the conduct of said influential person has been taken in the station diary of the police station. I. O. showed the copy of the station diary. It goes to show that accused have no regards of the condition of the order of bail and they shall not co-operate in investigation. ……..”

¶23

1.3 What has been recorded by me in the earlier paras, proves that

¶24

the Respondent is an influential person and is trying to avoid to attend the present Court proceeding. Hence, I have no other option but to proceed further with the hearing of the MCA.

¶25

By the present transfer proceeding, the Applicant – wife of the Respondent is seeking transfer of the divorce proceeding filed by the Respondent – husband before the learned Family Court, Pune to the learned CJSD, Vasai, District – Palghar.

¶26

It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent is a businessman and an influential person. He is not paying any amount towards maintenance to the Applicant – wife, after both of them have started staying separately. The Applicant is entirely dependent upon her

¶27

2 of 4

¶28

Anand

¶29

MCA 343-2025.doc

¶30

parents, monetarily and emotionally. The proceeding filed by the Respondent – husband before the learned Family Court, Pune which is around 200 Km away from Virar. There is no male member in the family who could accompany her to attend the Court proceeding before the learned Family Court, Pune and return back on the same day. There is also fear that she will be harmed physically by the Respondent who has an influential contacts.

¶31

The Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 has held that while deciding transfer proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. Paragraph 9 of the said Judgment reads as under :-

¶32

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand 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 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

3 of 4

Anand

MCA 343-2025.doc

¶37

Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the

¶38

case of N. C. V. Aishwarya (Supra) and facts of the present case, according to me, a case is made out to allow the MCA.

¶39

The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) .

¶40

The proceeding, being Civil M. A. No. 68 of 2025 pending before the learned Family Court, Pune be transferred to the learned CJSD, Vasai, District – Palghar within a period of four weeks from today.

¶41

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶42

4 of 4

¶43

Anand

Prachi Rohan Ghuge v. Rohan Manoj Ghuge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prachi Rohan Ghuge v. Rohan Manoj Ghuge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Admirecon Infrastructure Private Limited vs Sky Anchorage Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Shila Sadashiv Patil Thr. Poa Holder Vitthal Namdeo Patil vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No. 6, Pune

The Executive Engineer, Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project, Pune vs Babu Bapu More(Deceased)Thr Lrs. 1.1) Gulab Babu More and Ors.

Mrs. Pratiksha Utkarsh Dombe vs Mr. Utkarsh Navjivan Dombe (Husband)

Shweta Santosh Mali vs Santosh Ganpati Mali

Dhawal Pradip Sheth vs Meghana Dhawal Sheth