The Bombay High Court (Bombay Bench) allowed the husband’s application to transfer the wife’s matrimonial petition from Thane to Dhule to be heard alongside the husband’s divorce petition. The wife’s cross-application to transfer her divorce case from Dhule to Thane was rejected.
Two transfer applications were filed- one by the husband seeking transfer of the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights (filed in Thane) to Dhule, and another by the wife seeking transfer of the husband’s divorce petition (filed in Dhule) to Thane. Both petitions arise out of disputes in their marriage, including allegations of harassment and infidelity. The filings aimed to consolidate proceedings for convenience.
The couple was married in 2011 and have two minor daughters. Marital discord arose following persistent dowry demands, mental cruelty, and accusations of infidelity. The wife left the matrimonial home in late 2022 after serious quarrels, and both parties filed competing matrimonial petitions. The wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights and the husband filed for divorce. Attempts at reconciliation via counselling failed, resulting in ongoing parallel court proceedings in different jurisdictions.
The wife, financially dependent and from a modest background, argued her inability to travel frequently and alone from Thane to Dhule, emphasizing physical and emotional hardship. Her counsel urged that her convenience deserved priority in transfer decisions.
The husband’s counsel highlighted his responsibility for his children, aged parents, and livelihood through a kirana shop in Dhule. He noted that the wife had previously travelled between the two places and offered to reimburse her travel expenses and those of a companion.
The Bench comprising Justice Kamal Khata observed the hardship of both parties but held that the husband’s position carried greater weight due to his multiple dependents and financial responsibilities. The wife’s inability to sustain herself independently was acknowledged but found insufficient to outweigh the balance of convenience which was found in favour of the husband.
The Court found that mere long-distance travel does not constitute sufficient ground for transfer, aligning with precedents that consider the overall circumstances, including financial status and family responsibilities. The judgment cited authorities reinforcing that transfer of matrimonial proceedings should account for equitable convenience and hardship of the parties, rather than convenience alone.
In result, the Court allowed the husband’s application, transferring the wife’s restitution petition from Thane to Dhule for consolidation with the husband’s divorce petition. The wife’s reciprocal transfer application was dismissed.
Appearances:
For the Applicant Husband: Mr. Shantanu Deshpande (VC) a/w. Adv. Aishwarya Gaikwad i/by Divya Pawar, Adv.
For the Applicant Wife: Mr. Mahendra M. Agavekar, Adv.
