The Bombay High Court dismissed a transfer application filed by the Applicant (wife) seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Family Court, Pune to Civil Court, Senior Division, Kalamb, District Osmanabad. The Court observed that the application was a strategic attempt to delay proceedings that were already at an advanced stage and ready for final arguments.
Justice Kamal Khata noted that the Applicant had admittedly appeared before the Family Court, Pune on multiple occasions and the matter was slated for final arguments. The Court found that the Applicant’s conduct, as reflected in the record, suggested an intention to delay the proceedings rather than genuine hardship. The Court relied on Abhilasha Gupta v Harimohan Gupta[1] where the Supreme Court held that where the matter is at an advanced stage of trial, it ought not to be transferred.
The Applicant contended that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the Respondent (husband) and his parents. She further alleged that the Respondent was an alcoholic and had extramarital relations with another woman. Since the divorce proceedings were initiated by the Respondent before the Family Court at Pune, the applicant further contended that she is financially dependent on her parents and is therefore unable to pursue the proceedings in Pune. On this basis she seeks transfer of the proceedings .In support of the transfer request, reliance was placed on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay [2] and Sunita v. Baliram[3], where the courts had considered the hardship and life circumstances of wives seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
The Respondent (husband) opposed the application, arguing it was a tactical move to delay proceedings already fixed for final hearing. The Respondent contended that as the sole earning member caring for his ailing mother (father deceased), travel to Osmanabad would be equally inconvenient and could jeopardize his employment. He pointed out that the Family Court had video conferencing facilities and offered to bear ?3,000 travel expenses per appearance if the Applicant’s physical presence was required.
The Court upheld the Respondent’s arguments and affirmed that the Family Court’s roznama revealed that she and her counsel have been afforded adequate opportunity to be heard. The Applicant’s application to set aside the “no written statement” order was rejected due to delay, and despite examination-in-chief being filed in January 2024, the Applicant remained absent resulting in a “no-cross” order in February 2024. The Court also observed that the allegations were vague and self-contradictory, as while alleging cruelty, the Applicant simultaneously expressed willingness to cohabit with the Respondent, making her averments unconvincing and lacking credibility.
Accordingly, the transfer application was dismissed with no order as to costs, with the Court emphasizing that such misuse of the legal process to delay proceedings cannot be permitted. However, the Court provided certain reliefs while dismissing the application. It clarified that the Applicant was at liberty to seek permission from the Family Court, Pune to appear via video conferencing, and directed that such requests be considered on merit. In cases where personal presence was required, the Respondent was directed to pay ?5,000 per appearance towards the Applicant’s travel and related expenses.
Appearances:
Applicant: Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, a/w Adv. Sagar Wakale and Adv. R.S. Pere
Respondent: Adv. Ajinkya Udane, a/w Adv. Vinayak Pandit and Adv. S. Mansoori
[1] (2021) 9 SCC 730
[2] (2001) 10 SCC 41
[3] (2012) 2 Mah.LJ 143
