Allowed¶8

Sneha Prashant Ubale v. Prashant Pratapkumar Ubale

Bombay HC6 Mar 2026MCA/52/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial/divorce proceeding under Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure; convenience and hardship of wife; no income source; multiplicity of litigation avoided; Marriage Petition No. 253/2025 moved from Civil Judge Senior Division Pandharpur to Family Court Latur; concurrent maintenance application at Latur; respondent served but absent; relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, AIR Online 2022 SC 1268 (Supreme Court); Bombay High Court Aurangabad; Abhay J. Mantri, J.; Misc. Civil Application 52/2026.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B': transfer of the Divorce proceeding (Marriage Petition No. 253/2025) from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur to the Family Court, Latur; Application disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶8

Sneha Prashant Ubale vs Prashant Pratapkumar Ubale — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the Divorce proceeding (Marriage Petition/HMP No. 253/2025) pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur should be transferred to the Family Court, Latur.

¶1

Court's answer

In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Aishwarya (supra), it is appropriate to transfer the Divorce proceeding (Marriage Petition No. 253/2025) pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur to the Family Court, Latur.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The basis for the transfer is that the Applicant has no income source, attending the Pandharpur proceedings is inconvenient for her (approximately 190 kms away, per her contention), and she would otherwise endure hardship and suffering.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC, Aurangabad bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.; 21 April 2026) in MCA No. 52/2026 allowed Sneha Prashant Ubale's transfer application concerning the divorce/divorce proceeding (HMP/Marriage Petition No. 253/2025) filed by respondent-husband Prashant Pratapkumar Ubale before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur. Married 13.07.2021 at Latur; driven out of the matrimonial home on 20.05.2023, the Applicant resides at her parents' house in Latur, where her maintenance application is pending before the Family Court. Notice was duly served (office note dated 15.04.2026) but the Respondent did not appear. Invoking N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (AIR Online 2022 SC 1268) — under which 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, and in matrimonial matters courts weigh the economic soundness of the spouses and transfer concurrent proceedings to spare the wife inconvenience — the Court, noting the Applicant's lack of income source and the approximately 190 kms travel to Pandharpur causing hardship, transferred the proceeding to the Family Court, Latur. Application allowed per prayer clause 'B', disposed of, no order as to costs.

¶1

1 902.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2026

¶4

SNEHA PRASHANT UBALE VERSUS

¶5

PRASHANT PRATAPKUMAR UBALE

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gitte Mukund D.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

¶8

DATE : 21^ST APRIL, 2026

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

The Applicant has filed this Application seeking transfer of the Divorce proceeding bearing Marriage Petition No. 253/2025, pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur, to the learned Family Court, Latur.

¶11

Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and Perused

¶12

the record.

¶13

Office note dated 15.04.2026, indicates that notice was served on the Respondent. Despite service of the notice, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent either in the Court hall or through Video Conferencing mode.

¶14

It appears that the Applicant got married to the Respondent on 13.07.2021, at Latur. After cohabiting for some time, on 20.05.2023,

¶15

2 902.odt

¶16

the Respondent beat the Applicant and drove out of the matrimonial house. Since then, she has been residing at her parents’ house in Latur. The Applicant has filed the Application for the grant of maintenance, which is pending before the Family Court, Latur. To set back the said proceedings, the Respondent filed a Divorce proceeding bearing HMP No. 253/2025, before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur. Therefore, the Applicant has moved this Application.

¶17

The Applicant contended it is inconvenient for her to travel and attend the divorce proceeding pending at Pandharpur, which is approximately 190 kms away. The Applicant is also unable to bear the financial burden of travelling and attending the proceedings at Pandharpur. Similarly, she has filed a maintenance proceeding before the Family Court, Latur. Therefore, it is contended that it would be appropriate to transfer the proceeding from the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur, to the Family Court, Latur, to avoid causing multiplicity of the litigation and inconvenience to her.

¶18

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Versus A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 1268 , has observed that 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

¶19

3 902.odt

¶20

matrimonial matters, wherever courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, they must take into account the economic soundness of both parties, the social strata of the spouses, their behavioural patterns, their standard of life before and after the marriage, and the circumstances. The court also has to exercise interference when one proceeding is pending before one court and another proceeding is pending before another court; in such events, it would be appropriate to transfer all proceedings to one court to avoid inconvenience to the wife. Apart from that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that it would be appropriate to transfer the proceedings to the place where the wife resides to avoid causing her any inconvenience.

¶21

Having considered the above facts that the Applicant has no income source and it is inconvenient for the Applicant to travel and attend the proceedings at Pandharpur, it apparently indicates that she will have to endure hardship and suffering. Consequently, in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Aishwarya (supra), in my opinion, it would be appropriate to transfer the Divorce proceeding bearing Marriage Petition No. 253/2025, pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur, to the learned Family Court, Latur.

¶22

4 902.odt

¶23

As a result, the Application is allowed in terms of the prayer

¶24

clause ‘B’.

¶25

The Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶26

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶27

SPC

Sneha Prashant Ubale v. Prashant Pratapkumar Ubale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneha Prashant Ubale v. Prashant Pratapkumar Ubale

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

Manisha Avinash Harane vs Avinash Mohan Harane

Sandip Prabhakr Dere vs Shivaji Machindra Kale and Another

Shobha Angad Mane vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalyani Shankar Pandit vs Shankar P Rakesh Pandit

Deepak Dadarao Ghayal vs Yuvraj Padmakar Solanke and Others

Lata Dagdu Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another