Allowed

Rohini W/o Parth Mutrak v. Parth s/o Dnaneshwar Mutrak

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026MCA/34/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition from the Family Court at Nashik to Vaijapur, citing difficulty in travelling about 100 km from her paternal home. Allowing the wife's convenience to prevail, the Court transferred the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition B-18/2024 withdrawn from Family Court, Nashik and transferred to Civil Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur with immediate effect.

Rohini W/o Parth Mutrak vs Parth s/o Dnaneshwar Mutrak — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

31-MCA-34-2025.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:43

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

31 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2025

¶5

ROHINI W/O PARTH MUTRAK

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

PARTH S/O DNANESHWAR MUTRAK

¶8

Ms Madhaveshwari Mhase, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. V. P. Raje, Advocate for the Respondent

¶9

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

¶10

DATE : January 05, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard at length Ms Madhaveshwari Mhase, the

¶13

learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. V. P. Raje, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

By the present application, the applicant/wife prayed for transfer of Petition No.B-18/2024 from the file of learned Family Court, Nashik to the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur, on the ground that being a female and unable

¶15

to travel at Nashik from her paternal house Shirasgaon, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, to attend the proceeding on each

¶16

and every date, due to non availability of transportation facility.

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

(( 2 )) 31-MCA-34-2025

¶19

Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the distance between Vaijapur and Nashik is about 100 km., and ample transportation facilities are available. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is ready and willing to bear the transportation expenses, hence prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶20

Needless to say that the present applicant has filed D.V. proceeding bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.235 of 2024 and it is pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C. Vaijapur. However, the non-applicant / husband had filed Petition No.B-18 of 2024 and prayed for decree of divorce. The present applicant being a lady, stayed at her paternal house at village Shirasgaon, Taluka Vaijapur and she is unable to travel to Family Court at Nashik on each and every date, and as such, the non-applicant is a businessman, can travel from Nashik to Vaijapur, which is 100 km., away. Therefore, considering the convenience of attending the proceeding, it would be just and proper to withdraw the Petition No.B-18 of 2024 from the file of the learned Family Court, Nashik and transfer the same to the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur, for adjudication on its own merits.

2 of 3

(( 3 ))

31-MCA-34-2025

In view of above discussion, the present Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed.

¶25

Petition No. B-18 of 2024, is hereby withdrawn from the file of learned Family Court, Nashik and the same is directed to be transferred to the file of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vaijapur, with immediate effect.

¶26

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]

¶27

SMS

¶28

3 of 3

Rohini W/o Parth Mutrak v. Parth s/o Dnaneshwar Mutrak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini W/o Parth Mutrak v. Parth s/o Dnaneshwar Mutrak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avesh Alais Faizan Raju Patel vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Baburao Shivaji Gade vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ujwala Vikrant Patil vs Vikrant Anil Patil

Parmila Akash Salve vs Akash Santosh Salve

Nilesh Ram Salunke and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khan Imran Khan Hakim vs Umesh Patil