AJINKYA ASHOK KESKARversusABOLI AJINKYA KESKAR

                                                                           23. MCA 108-2026.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2026

                      Ajinkya Ashok Keskar                                    ..Applicant

                               Versus

                      Aboli Ajinkya Keskar                                    ..Respondent
         Digitally
         signed by
         ANAND
                      Mr. Ajinkya M. Udane, Advocate, for the Applicant
ANAND    SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
                      Mr. Girish N. Kulkarni-Mardikar a/w. Mr. Omkar V. Somvanshi,
         2026.05.25
         17:55:10
         +0530
                      Advocates, for the Respondent

                                                CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                                DATE       : 08.05.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      By the present transfer Application, the Applicant, who is the

                      husband of the Respondent – wife is seeking transfer of the Application

                      for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the Respondent – wife from

                      the Family Court, Latur to the C.J.S.D., Pune.

                      2.      It is the case of the Applicant that both the Applicant and the

                      Respondent are working in the corporate sector in Pune. Therefore, if

                      the proceeding filed by the Respondent–wife is transferred to the

                      C.J.S.D., Pune, it will be convenient, as the proceedings can be heard

                      together with divorce proceeding filed by the Applicant–husband.

                      3.      Learned Counsel for the Respondent-wife disputed the fact that

                      she is working in Pune. He submitted that she is, in fact, working from

                      Anand                            1 of 5
                                                     23. MCA 108-2026.doc

home in Latur and only occasionally, when required, attends the office

in Pune.

4.      In order to get clarification on the issue of whether the

Respondent–wife is working in Pune or Latur, I had called for a

response from her employer by my Order dated 30.04.2026. The

employer was specifically asked to clarify whether the Respondent is

physically working in Pune or working from home. The employer has

since responded, and the said fact has been noted by me in my Order

dated 07.05.2026, which reads as under:-

        “1) Mr. G.N. Kulkarni Mardikar, learned counsel
        appearing for the respondent has handed over sealed
        packet which is issued by the company ‘Cognizant’. The
        said sealed packet has been opened and it contains
        communication dated 6/5/2026 issued by the authorised
        officer of the Cognizant Technology Solutions India
        Private Limited which mentions that Mrs. Aboli
        Abhimanyu Netragaonkar has been working with the
        Cognizant and has been working under a hybrid work
        model since January 2026, wherein she primarily
        discharges her duties on a Work From Home (WFH) basis
        and is required to attend the office for four days in a
        month, as per business requirements. The said
        communication is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for
        identification purpose.

        2)    Stand over to 8 May 2026.”

5.      Hence, in my view, there is no dispute that the Respondent-wife

works from home and only comes to the City of Pune for four days a

month. Admittedly, the distance between Latur and Pune is around 370


Anand                           2 of 5
                                                        23. MCA 108-2026.doc

Km and it takes about ten hours to travel.

6.      In response to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for

the Respondent, the learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted

that the Applicant–husband has a compulsion to attend his office in

Pune. Therefore, in my opinion, the proceedings filed by the

Respondent-wife should be transferred from the Family Court at Latur

to the C.J.S.D., Pune. Further, the Respondent relies upon the Order

passed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.

2137 of 2024, wherein the parties were permitted to appear through

video conferencing.

7.      The Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S.

Sarvana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 has held

that while deciding transfer proceedings, convenience of the wife has

to be taken into consideration. Paragraph 9 of the said Judgment reads

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 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 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

Anand                            3 of 5
                                                        23. MCA 108-2026.doc

        paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s
        convenience which must be looked at while considering
        transfer.”

                                               (emphasis supplied)

8.      Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

of N. C. V. Aishwarya (supra) and the facts of the present case, where

the Respondent-wife only attends her office in Pune for four days a

month, and the distance between Latur and Pune is around 370 Km

taking ten hours to travel, I am convinced that the balance of

convenience lies in her favor and the present Miscellaneous Civil

Application has no merit.

9.      The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands rejected.

10.     Mr. Udane, learned Counsel for the Applicant referred to the two

Orders of the Supreme Court. In one of the Orders in the case of

Himani Virendra Bajaj vs. Virendra Bajaj in para 5 of the

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 29 of 2024 , the Supreme Court held that

liberty is granted to the Respondent – husband to move an appropriate

Application before the transferee Court for permission to participate in

the proceedings virtually.

11.     Similarly, in the case of Vommi Vinayaka Jhansi vs.V. S. Yogesh in

para 4 of the Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2137 of 2024 along with

connected Petitions, the Supreme Court held that we make it clear that


Anand                            4 of 5
                                                        23. MCA 108-2026.doc

it is on the discretion of the concerned Court to allow the presence of

the parties virtually until specifically directed.

12.     In my view, suffice would be the purpose, if the Applicant is

permitted to file an appropriate Application before the concerned Court

seeking to attend the proceedings via video conferencing. If such an

Application is filed, the Court will decide the same on its own merits

after hearing both parties.


                                                     (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




Anand                             5 of 5