Sonu Sukhram Prajapati v. Sukhram Jagdish Prajapati

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026MCA/201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial proceedings; Section 24 CPC; convenience of wife; N.C.V. Aishwarya 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; Marriage Petition No.A/2307/2024; Family Court Bandra to Family Court Pune; MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.201/2025; Bombay High Court; Rajesh S. Patil, J.; wife residing at Pune with minor son; 160 km distance; apprehension of harm; respondent evading service; maintenance non-payment alleged.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Marriage Petition No.A/2307/2024 from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Pune within four weeks; applicant's counsel directed to convey the order to the concerned Court and file an affidavit to that effect within two weeks; Registrar (Judicial-I) directed to communicate the order to the Registrar of the concerned Court by E-mail. ¶¶26

Sonu Sukhram Prajapati vs Sukhram Jagdish Prajapati — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the husband's divorce proceedings (Marriage Petition No.A/2307/2024) pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai ought to be transferred to the Family Court at Pune on the ground of the applicant-wife's convenience.

¶¶9

Court's answer

The Court found that the respondent was avoiding attendance in the present proceedings before this Court.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into account that the applicant-wife is staying with their son aged five years at Pune and that the distance between Pune and Mumbai is around 160 kms.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra) to these facts, the Court was convinced that the Miscellaneous Civil Application required to be allowed.ratio¶¶25
The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).ratio¶¶26
Marriage Petition No.A/2307/2024 pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai is directed to be transferred to the Family Court at Pune within a period of four weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), single Judge (Rajesh S. Patil, J.), allowed Misc. Civil Application No.201/2025 filed by the wife (Sonu Sukhram Prajapati) seeking transfer of her husband's divorce proceedings — Marriage Petition No.A/2307/2024 — from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Pune. Grounds taken: the wife resides at Pune with their five-year-old son and attends to his schooling and extracurricular activities, no one is available to accompany her to Court, she apprehends physical harm if she visits Mumbai, and the Pune–Mumbai distance is around 160 kms. The Court applied the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 (whose para 9, exercising power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, states that in matrimonial transfer matters it is generally the wife's convenience which must be looked at) and held that the application deserved to be allowed. The respondent had avoided service — his residence was found locked, the postal notice returned 'Unclaimed', and his Bandra advocate refused to accept the application. The application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with transfer directed within four weeks; counsel to convey the order and file an affidavit within two weeks; Registrar (Judicial-I) to communicate the order by E-mail.

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:1594

¶2

Diksha Rane 5 MCA 2012025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.201/2025

¶5

SONU SUKHRAM PRAJAPATI VS SUKHRAM JAGDISH PRAJAPATI

¶6

Adv. Amol B. Jagtap for applicant. None for respondent.

¶7

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 JANUARY 2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1) By the present proceedings, the applicant who is wife of the respondent is seeking transfer of husband’s divorce proceedings filed before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at Pune.

¶10

2) It is the applicant’s case that she has to take care of her minor child and also about his school and extracurricular activities in Pune. There is no one to accompany her for attending the Court proceedings. So also, there is a fear in her mind that if she visits Mumbai, the respondent would physically harm her.

¶11

3) By an order dated 3 October 2025, notices were issued to the respondent. The Bailiff report shows that the door of the residence of

¶12

¶13

Diksha Rane 5 MCA 2012025.doc

¶14

the respondent is found lock as he had gone to his native place. Hence, fresh notices were issued to the respondents. On 13 October 2025, the Bailiff had again been to serve the respondent when he was informed that the respondent is not residing at the given address and the premises was found lock. As regards advocate’s private notice, an affidavit of service dated 6 December 2025 has been filed which states that the notice addressed to the respondent by post is returned back with postal remark ‘Unclaimed’.

¶15

4) Mr. Jagtap, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits

¶16

that he attempted to serve the advocate for the respondent who is appearing before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. He submits that the said advocate refused to accept the service of present Misc. Civil Application. Mr. Jagtap also submits that the respondent is not paying maintenance to the applicant-wife and to their son.

¶17

5) Considering the facts as stated in the above paragraphs, it seems that the respondent is avoiding to attend the present proceedings before this Court.

¶18

6) 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 has

¶19

held that the convenience of the wife has to be seen for the transfer

¶20

¶21

Diksha Rane 5 MCA 2012025.doc

¶22

proceedings. Paragraph no.9 of the said judgment reads as under :-

¶23

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.

¶24

(Emphasis supplied)

¶25

7) Considering the facts of the present proceedings where the applicant-wife of the respondent is staying with their son aged five years at Pune and the distance between Pune and Mumbai is around 160 kms and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra), I am convinced that the present Miscellaneous Civil Application requires to be allowed.

¶26

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

¶27

9) The proceedings of Marriage Petition No.A/2307/2024 pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, be transferred

¶28

¶29

Diksha Rane 5 MCA 2012025.doc

¶30

to the Family Court at Pune, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶31

10) Learned counsel for the applicant is hereby directed to convey the order passed today to the concerned Court and file affidavit to that effect within a period of two weeks from today.

¶32

11) Similarly, Registrar (Judicial-I) is hereby directed to communicate the order passed today to the Registrar of the concerned Court by E-mail.

¶33

(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)

¶34

¶35

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/01/2026 19:02:41

Sonu Sukhram Prajapati v. Sukhram Jagdish Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Sukhram Prajapati v. Sukhram Jagdish Prajapati

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

Ghodawat Consumer Ltd. Erstwhile Ghodawat Foods International Pvt. Ltd. vs Wintech Taparia Ltd.

Jaspal Sawhney vs Joginder Sawhney

Smt. Rohini W/O Mangesh Rajak vs Mr. Mangesh Kumar Rajak

S.B. Deshmukh and Ors. Vs K.B. Deshmukh and Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Moreshwar Anant Kashe and Anr.

Vinayak v.Moray Vs Smt. Vijayadevi v. Moray and Ors.