Bombay High Court

SWATI PRADEEP SANKPALversusPRADEEP VASANT SANKPAL

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that, in view of the wife’s sole caregiving responsibilities, lack of income and the considerable distance, the ends of justice demanded transfer of the restitution of conjugal rights proceeding to the Civil Court at Karad under Section 24 CPC.

Summary

The wife (Applicant) filed an application under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights proceeding (Marriage Petition A No. 1982 of 2025) from the Family Court, Pune to the Civil Judge Senior Division, Karad. She argued that she is a homemaker with no income, the sole caregiver of two minor children who study in Karad, and that the 190 km distance to Pune would cause undue hardship. The husband (Respondent) opposed, claiming difficulty in attending proceedings in Karad and alleging the wife is employed as an Anganwadi teacher without providing proof. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, emphasizing that the wife’s convenience is paramount in matrimonial transfer applications. Finding the wife’s inconvenience greater than the husband’s, the Court allowed the transfer, directing the petition to be withdrawn from Pune and assigned to the Civil Court at Karad. The application was disposed of in favour of the Applicant.

Issues considered

Whether the restitution of conjugal rights proceeding may be transferred under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure considering the parties' convenience.
Whether the wife's lack of income and sole caregiving responsibilities justify the transfer of the case to a court nearer to her residence.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24

Subjects

transfer of suit
Section 24 CPC
restitution of conjugal rights
matrimonial law
convenience of parties
child care responsibilities
family law
jurisdiction

Judgment

910-MCA-10-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2026
Swati Pradeep Sankpal ...Applicant
Versus
Pradeep Vasant Sankpal ...Respondent
----
Mr. Rushikesh Desai i/b Saiprasad Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Someshwar Wale a/w Pooja Wale, Advocate for the Respondent.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 4th September, 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard, Mr. Rushikesh Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the Respondent.

2. By the present Application filed under Section 24 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicant has sought the following

substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a):-

(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to transfer
the Respondent Restitution of Conjugal rights
proceeding bearing Marriage Petition A No. 1982 of
2025 filed before the Ld. Family Court, Pune to Ld.
Civil Judge Senior Division, at Karad;

3. The Applicant - Wife is seeking transfer of the conjugal rights

proceedings bearing Marriage Petition A No. 1982 of 2025, filed by the

Respondent – Husband, before the Family Court, Pune, to the Court at
Arjun 1
910-MCA-10-2026.doc

Karad, on two grounds :-

(a) The Applicant is a homemaker with no source of income and

the sole caregiver of the minor son (aged 13 years) and the

minor daughter (aged 7 years).

(b) That the Applicant has her place of abode in Karad

District, causing inconvenience to her in attending the

proceedings before the Family Court at Pune, which is almost

190 Kms away.

4. On 10.03.2026, the following order was passed :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the
Applicant.

2. The Applicant is wife who is seeking
transfer of proceedings filed by Respondent-
husband in Family Court, Pune for restitution of
conjugal rights to the Court of Civil Judge Senior
Division, Karad.

3. It is stated in the application that the
Applicant is staying at Karad with her aged parents
and with a son and a daughter. It is stated that the
Applicant's children are taking education at Karad.
It is further stated that the Applicant is dependent
upon her parents for livelihood and therefore, it is
difficult for her to attend Court at Pune which is at
a distance of about 190 kms from Karad.

Arjun 2
910-MCA-10-2026.doc

4. Considering the submissions, issue
notice for final disposal to the Respondent,
returnable on 07.04.2026. In addition to Court
notice, private notice is permitted.

5. Till next date, proceedings of Marriage
Petition A No. 1982 of 2025 pending before the
Family Court at Pune, is stayed.

5. Mr. Someshwar Wale, learned Advocate for the Respondent,

submits that although the Respondent is employed in the private sector,

it is not possible for him to take leave on each date fixed in Marriage

Petition A No. 1982 of 2025. He states that it will be very difficult for

the Respondent to attend the proceedings in Karad. He further submits

that according to information received by the Respondent, the Applicant

is working as an Anganwadi Teacher, however, he is unable to point out

any material to support this contention. He therefore opposes this

application.

6. In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 1, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has observed as under:-

“9. 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 matrimonial
matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider
the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199

Arjun 3
910-MCA-10-2026.doc

consideration the economic soundness of both the
parties, the social strata of the spouses and their
behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the
marriage and subsequent thereto and the
circumstances of both the parties in eking out their
livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they
are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the
prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian
society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which
must be looked at while considering transfer.

7. The Applicant's residence in Karad, the distance of 190 kms from

Karad to Pune and the Applicant's role as the sole caregiver of the two

minor children born out of wedlock from the Respondent, studying in

the District of Karad, are not in dispute. Mr. Rushikesh Desai, learned

Advocate for the Applicant, has stated that the Applicant is a

homemaker without any source of income.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the inconvenience that would be

caused to the Applicant in attending and pursuing the Marriage Petition

A No. 1982 of 2025 at Pune would be much greater than the

inconvenience claimed by the Respondent. In view of the same and

more particularly, the Applicant's additional responsibility of taking care

of two minor school-going children, I deem it fit and proper to allow

this Application in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, Marriage

Petition A No. 1982 of 2025 is withdrawn from the Family Court, Pune

and transferred to the Civil Court at Karad, which has jurisdiction to try
Arjun 4
910-MCA-10-2026.doc

matrimonial and family disputes.

9. The Principal District Judge, Satara, is requested to assign

Marriage Petition A No. 1982 of 2025 to the Civil Court at Karad, which

has jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial and family disputes.

10. The Applicant shall produce a copy of this order before the

Principal District Judge, Satara.

11. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 10 of 2026 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.09.07
10:28:09
+0530

Arjun 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…