Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6159-6160 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 15558-15559 of 2014)

VAISHALI SHRIDHAR JAGTAP ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

SHRIDHAR VISHWANATH JAGTAP ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is

aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer

the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to

Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review

Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view

that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for

defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be

paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2016.07.19

3. According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is 16:18:32 IST Reason:

difficult for her mother to accompany the appellant for her

1 travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal

cases - one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention

of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the third under Section

498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related

provisions, pending at Barshi, and one on the civil side for

restitution.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has

vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted

that the appellant’s mother is only 60 years old and that she

has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the

witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to

travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the

respondent-husband.

5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is

around 400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are

pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is

more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter,

unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside

and the M. J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the

2 respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand

transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no

orders as to costs.

..................................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)

......………………………………J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi;

July 8, 2016.

3 ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.10 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos. 15558-15559/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/01/2014 in CA No. 186/2013 15/04/2014 in RP No. 1/2014 15/04/2014 in MCA No. 186/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) VAISHALI SHRIDHAR JAGTAP Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SHRIDHAR VISHWANATH JAGTAP Respondent(s)

(with interim relief and office report)

Date : 08/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.

Ms. Gwen K.B., Adv.

Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of signed non-reportable Judgment.

Pending applications(s) shall stand disposed of.

(Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan)

SR. P.A. COURT MASTER

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

4