Allowed¶16

Sarika W/O Ashish Hatwar v. Ashish S/O Sukhdeo Hatwar

Bombay HC19 Jun 2025MCA/586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCA No.586/2023; Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court; R.M. Joshi, J.; decided 19-06-2025; convenience of wife in matrimonial proceedings; Hindu Marriage Petition No.2/2022 Bhandara; restitution of conjugal rights petition; Section 8 Guardians and Wards Act 1890 proceedings; Chandrapur; alleged non-payment of maintenance; minor daughter; no independent income; unopposed application, respondent absent despite service; allowed in terms of prayer clause-A; direction to list all three proceedings on same date.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause-A; applicant-wife directed to ensure that all three pending proceedings are kept for hearing on the same date. ¶16

Sarika W/O Ashish Hatwar Vs Ashish S/O Sukhdeo… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause-A; applicant-wife directed to ensure that all three pending proceedings are kept for hearing on the same date.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-wife's application (MCA No.586/2023) should be allowed in terms of prayer clause-A - i.e., relieving her of attendance at, or securing transfer of, Hindu Marriage Petition No.2/2022 pending at Bhandara - given that she has no independent source of income, has responsibility for the minor daughter, alleges non-payment of maintenance, and her own proceedings are pending at Chandrapur.

¶12

Court's answer

The respondent did not appear despite service of notice; his absence indicates that he is not interested in opposing the application, and the applicant's contention has accordingly gone unchallenged.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The inconvenience of the wife needs to be considered over the inconvenience, if any, caused to the husband.

¶16

Key takeaways

Since the applicant has already filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and proceedings under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, both pending before the Court at Chandrapur which the respondent would have to attend, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the application is allowed; hence the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause-A.ratio¶16
In order to ensure that the respondent is not harassed by the three proceedings being kept on different dates, it shall be the duty of the applicant-wife to ensure that all these three proceedings are kept for hearing on the same date.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (R.M. Joshi, J.; 19-06-2025), MCA No.586/2023 - Sau. Sarika v. Ashish. Unopposed miscellaneous civil application by the wife, resident of Chandrapur, having responsibility for a minor daughter, claiming no independent source of income and alleging non-payment of maintenance by the husband, in relation to Hindu Marriage Petition No.2/2022 pending at Bhandara. The respondent did not appear despite service of notice, indicating he was not interested in opposing. Holding that the inconvenience of the wife must be considered over any inconvenience to the husband - particularly since the respondent would in any event have to attend the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and her proceedings under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, both pending at Chandrapur - the Court allowed the application in terms of prayer clause-A, and further directed that, to avoid harassment, it shall be the duty of the applicant-wife to ensure that all three proceedings are kept for hearing on the same date. The text does not reproduce the contents of prayer clause-A; the evident object is relocation of the matrimonial proceedings to Chandrapur.

Sarika W/O Ashish Hatwar v. Ashish S/O Sukhdeo Hatwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika W/O Ashish Hatwar v. Ashish S/O Sukhdeo Hatwar

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

Similar cases

Dilip Vishwanathrao Wadhale Vs District Cooperative Election Officer, District Deputy Registrar, Amravati

Nita Vijay Surjuse (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs Rahufkhan Chotukhan Pathan and Others

Sau. Vidya W/O Vinayak Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Wardha and Others

Pooja W/O Jayant Ahirkar @ Pooja d/o Ashokrao Pophale Vs Jayant S/O Arunrao Ahirkar

Narsingh Bhagwan Saw Mill, Midc Jamner, Jalgaon and Others vs the Regional Officer, Integrated Regional Office, Ministry of Environment Forest, Nagpur and Ors.

Dr. Ashok S/O Purushotaam Jhunjhunwala Vs Mohankumar S/O Purushottam Jhunjhunwala and Others