Allowed¶30

Shweta Umesh Gaikwad v. Umesh Bhimrao Gaikwad

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026MCA/1/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial proceedings; restitution of conjugal rights; Marriage Petition No. 611 of 2025; Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure; convenience of the wife in transfer cases; N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199; CJSD Panvel (District Raigad) to CJSD Pune; wife residing at Pune with two minor sons (aged 5 and 10); Divorce Petition pending at Pune; around 130 Km distance; hearing proceeded without Respondent despite service.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Civil Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): transfer of Marriage Petition No. 611 of 2025 pending before the learned CJSD, Panvel, District - Raigad to the learned CJSD, Pune within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. ¶30

Shweta Umesh Gaikwad vs Umesh Bhimrao Gaikwad — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the Respondent (Marriage Petition No. 611 of 2025) pending before the learned CJSD, Panvel, District – Raigad should be transferred to the learned CJSD, Pune, having regard to the convenience of the Applicant-wife.

¶20

Court's answer

Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N. C. V. Aishwarya (that the wife's convenience governs matrimonial transfer proceedings) together with the facts that the Applicant-wife stays at Pune with her two school-going sons aged 5 and 10 and that there is no male member in her family to accompany her to Panvel, the Judge was convinced that the MCA required to be allowed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Marriage Petition No. 611 of 2025 pending before the learned CJSD, Panvel, District - Raigad was ordered to be transferred to the learned CJSD, Pune within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

¶31

Key takeaways

As the Respondent, though duly served, did not appear when the matter was called out, the Court treated him as not interested in pursuing the Application and proceeded with the hearing in his absence.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MCA No. 1 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), decided 11.02.2026 by Rajesh S. Patil, J. The Applicant-wife, Shweta Umesh Gaikwad, sought transfer of her husband Umesh Bhimrao Gaikwad's Application for restitution of conjugal rights (Marriage Petition No. 611 of 2025) pending before the learned CJSD, Panvel, District – Raigad, to the learned CJSD, Pune, where she resides with their two sons aged 5 and 10 who study at Pune, and where the Respondent's Divorce Petition is already pending; the Panvel–Pune distance is around 130 Km and no male member of her family can accompany her to Panvel. Relying on N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 (per whose quoted paragraph 9, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the wife's convenience must generally be looked at in matrimonial transfers), the Court allowed the MCA in terms of prayer clause (a) and directed transfer within four weeks. The Respondent, though duly served, did not appear and the matter was heard in his absence.

¶1

MCA 1-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2026

¶4

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶5

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶6

Date: 2026.02.17 17:17:20 +0530

¶7

Shweta Umesh Gaikwad ..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Umesh Bhimrao Gaikwad ..Respondent Mr. O. P. Singh a/w. Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Advocates, for the Applicant

¶10

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶11

DATE : 11.02.2026

¶12

P. C.

¶13

Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks liberty to amend prayer clause (a) by adding the word “Marriage” before the word “Petition”. Liberty as prayed for is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondent has been duly served by a private service. Office remarks show that the Respondent has been duly served by Court’s notice but none appears for the Respondent when the matter is called out.

¶15

2.1 Hence, I am of the opinion that the Respondent is not interested

¶16

in pursuing the present Application. Hence, I have proceeded further with the hearing of the proceeding.

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

Anand

¶19

MCA 1-2026.doc

¶20

By the present transfer Application, the Applicant, who is the wife of the Respondent is seeking transfer of the Application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the Respondent before the learned CJSD, Panvel, District – Raigad to the learned CJSD, Pune.

¶21

The Divorce Petition filed by the Respondent is already pending before the learned CJSD, Pune. The Applicant is staying along with her two sons, aged 5 and 10 years. Both the sons are studying in School at Pune. The distance between Panvel and Pune is around 130 Km. It is difficult for the Applicant to attend the Court proceeding at Panvel. Hence, the Applicant is seeking transfer of the proceeding to Pune.

¶22

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 :-

¶23

“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

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

Anand

¶26

MCA 1-2026.doc

¶27

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.”

¶28

(emphasis supplied)

¶29

Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya (Supra) and facts of the present case, where the Applicant is staying along with her two sons at Pune and as there is no male member in the family of the Applicant to accompany her to attend the Court proceeding at Panvel, I am convinced that the MCA requires to be allowed.

¶30

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

¶31

The proceeding, being the Marriage Petition No. 611 of 2025 pending before the learned CJSD, Panvel, District - Raigad be transferred to the learned CJSD, Pune within a period of four weeks from today.

¶32

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶33

3 of 3

¶34

Anand

Shweta Umesh Gaikwad v. Umesh Bhimrao Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta Umesh Gaikwad v. Umesh Bhimrao Gaikwad

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

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

Kalpana P Chaudhari Decdthr Lhr 1A Kalika Mandhar Chaudhari and Ors. vs Ganesh Parsharam Chaudhari and Ors.

Mayuri Shirish Katkar vs Pritesh Yogendra Gupte

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