Allowed¶35

Prerana Swapnil Shete v. Swapnil Dilip Shete

Matrimonial transfer – convenience of wife

Bombay HC9 Oct 2025MCA/505/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Rajesh S. Patil, J. — Misc. Civil Application No. 505 of 2024, Prerana Swapnil Shete v. Swapnil Dilip Shete, decided 9 October 2025. Wife's transfer application allowed: Marriage Petition No. 230/2024 (divorce) moved from Civil Judge SD Sangamner, Ahmednagar to Civil Judge SD Pune within four weeks on wife's-convenience grounds (minor daughter, ~200 km distance, husband's business office in Pune). Relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 (Section 24 CPC). Ex parte: service held sufficient; respondent deliberately absent.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Marriage Petition No. 230 of 2024 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Ahmednagar to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, to be completed within four weeks. ¶35

Prerana Swapnil Shete vs Swapnil Dilip Shete — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer of Marriage Petition No. 230 of 2024 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Ahmednagar to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, to be completed within four weeks.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent was duly served such that the court could proceed with the Miscellaneous Civil Application despite his non-appearance. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The respondent was duly served (five affidavits of service, delivery recorded on 6 May 2025, and service effected on his trial-court advocate on 22 September 2025) and his absence is deliberate with ulterior motives; the court proceeded with the matter.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Applying the principle in N.C.V. Aishwarya that the wife's convenience is the cardinal consideration in matrimonial transfer pleas, and considering that the applicant resides in Pune with her 6-year-old daughter admitted in a Pune school, that Sangamner is about 200 kms away, and that the respondent-husband's business office is in Pune, the court was convinced the application deserved to be allowed.

¶34

Key takeaways

The Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b): Marriage Petition No. 230/2024 shall stand transferred from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune within four weeks.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matrimonial transfer — convenience of wife — Miscellaneous Civil Application by wife allowed; Marriage Petition No. 230 of 2024 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Ahmednagar directed to be transferred to Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune within four weeks. Grounds: applicant resides at Pune with minor daughter aged about 6 years admitted in a Pune school; Sangamner is around 200 kms away; respondent-husband's business office is in Pune, making attendance at Pune convenient for him. Court relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 (wife's convenience is the cardinal principle under Section 24 CPC). Respondent, though duly served (including service on his trial-court advocate), did not appear; absence held deliberate.

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/4

¶3

44 - MCA 505 OF 2024.doc

¶4

Digitally signed KANCHANVINOD by KANCHANVINODMAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2025.10.13 20:37:05 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 505 OF 2024

¶8

Prerana Swapnil Shete

¶9

….. Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Swapnil Dilip Shete ….. Respondent

¶12

Mr. Sagar S. Bhirange for the Applicant.

¶13

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶14

DATE : 9 OCTOBER, 2025

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

None appears for the respondent when the matter is

¶17

called out.

¶18

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that in all, five affidavits of service have been filed in the present proceedings. He submits that on 31 January, 2025. The packet containing copy of the MCA has returned with a remark ‘Insufficient Address’. Again, on 1 February, 2025, the packet containing a copy of the MCA was returned back with the remark ‘refused’.

¶19

On 6 May, 2025, the packet addressed to the respondent was duly delivered with a remark ‘Item delivered Sender’. Again, by a covering letter dated 22 September, 2025, the service was effected on

¶20

2/4

¶21

KVM

¶22

44 - MCA 505 OF 2024.doc

¶23

the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent before the trial Court. I am convinced that the respondent has been duly served and with ulterior motives, is not appearing in the present proceedings.

¶24

This present proceeding is filed by the applicant, wife of the respondent-husband, seeking transfer of the marriage petition for divorce filed by the respondent-husband before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Ahmednagar to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant that she is residing at Pune alongwith her minor daughter aged about 6 years. The daughter is admitted in a school in Pune. It is further submitted that the husband has filed the proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Ahmednagar. The distance between Sangamner and Pune is around 200 kms. Infact, the husband is in business and his business office is in Pune City. It will be difficult for the applicant to travel alone to Sangamner as her daughter is of 6 years of age. However, for the husband to attend the proceedings in Pune is convenient because in any case, he has office of his business in Pune.

¶26

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

¶27

3/4

¶28

KVM

¶29

44 - MCA 505 OF 2024.doc

¶30

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 :-

¶31

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 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.

¶32

(Emphasis supplied)

¶33

Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶34

Court in case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra) and the facts of the present case, I am convinced that the present Miscellaneous Civil Application requires to be allowed.

¶35

The present Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) . The said prayer clause (b) reads as under :-

¶36

(b) The Hon’ble Court be please to transfer proceeding Marriage Petition No. 230 of 2024 pending before Ld. Civil

¶37

KVM

¶38

4/4

¶39

44 - MCA 505 OF 2024.doc

¶40

Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Ahmednagar to Hon’ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.

¶41

The proceedings of Marriage Petition No. 230/2024 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar be transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Prerana Swapnil Shete v. Swapnil Dilip Shete

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prerana Swapnil Shete v. Swapnil Dilip Shete

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

Devidas Prakash Dalvi vs Sarah Enterprises

Abhishek Dilip Karangutkar vs Sarah Enterprises

The Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd. Through its Authorized Officer Shri Ratnakar Randive vs Ms Swastik Transport and Ors.

Rishi Dandona vs Varsha Dandona

Ranjitsingh Linga vs Parwan Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

New Golden Transport Co. vs Parwan Constructions Pvt. Ltd.