Bombay High Court

Megha Sandeep Kanjoje Alias Megha Sudhakar ManeversusSandeep Pyarelal Kanoje

Decided: 6 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: RAJESH S PATIL

Holding

The court held that, considering the wife’s relocation and the principles laid down in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the transfer of both the divorce petition and the D.V. proceeding to the Family Court, Pune, is warranted.

Summary

The wife (applicant) filed two miscellaneous civil applications seeking transfer of her pending divorce petition and a domestic violence (D.V.) proceeding from courts in Mumbai to the Family Court in Pune, citing her relocation to Pune with her six‑year‑old daughter. The applicant highlighted an interim maintenance order of Rs.40,000 per month with arrears of Rs.11,00,000 and a settlement of Rs.50,00,000 that the husband had not paid. The respondent’s counsel sought additional time to take instructions, which the court rejected. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. C. V. Aishwarya v. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha, the court emphasized that the wife’s convenience is a primary consideration in transfer applications under Section 24 of the CPC. Finding that the applicant’s relocation justified the transfer and that it would not prejudice the respondent, the court allowed both applications, ordering the transfer of the proceedings to the Pune Family Court and their consolidation before a single judge. The order was directed to be communicated to the respective courts in Mumbai.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of transferring matrimonial and domestic violence proceedings from Mumbai to Pune under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the convenience of the wife, who has relocated to Pune, outweighs any inconvenience to the husband in granting the transfer.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24

Subjects

transfer of suit
Section 24 CPC
family court jurisdiction
domestic violence
interim maintenance
wife's convenience
consolidation of proceedings

Judgment

22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2026
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 13260 OF 2026

Megha Sandeep Kanjoje alias ..Applicant
Megha Sudhakar Mane

Digitally
Versus
signed by
ANAND
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME Date:
2026.08.08
Sandeep Pyarelal Kanoje ..Respondent
15:39:01
+0530

Mr. Prasanna K. Shahane a/w. Mr. Dattatraya Devkar, Advocates, for
the Applicant in both matters
Mr. Harshal P. Nahata, Advocate, for the Respondent in both matters

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 6 AUGUST, 2026
P. C.

1. By Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 146 of 2026, the

Applicant, who is the wife of the Respondent – husband is seeking

transfer of her own divorce proceeding filed before the Family Court,

Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court, Pune and in M.C.A.(St.) No.

13260 of 2026, the Applicant, who is the wife of the Respondent –

husband is seeking transfer of her own D. V. proceeding filed before the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 th Court, Borivali, Mumbai to

the Family Court, Pune.

2. It is the case of the Applicant that she has now shifted to Pune

Anand 1 of 5
22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc

along with her six years old daughter who is admitted in School at

Pune. There was an Order passed for an interim maintenance in the

D. V. proceeding directing the Respondent – husband to pay

Rs.40,000/- per month to the Applicant and to her daughter. As of

today, there are arrears of Rs.11,00,000/-. In fact, there was settlement

between the parties before the Magistrate’s Court in the D. V.

proceeding and the Respondent – husband was supposed to pay

Rs.50,00,000/- to the Applicant – wife. However, the Respondent –

husband did not pay Rs.50,00,000/- to the Applicant – wife.

3. Mr. Nahata, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he

needs further time to take instructions from his client.

4. On 31 July, 2026, when this matter was called out, Mr. Nahata,

learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 had sought time and

it was recorded that Mr. Nahata undertakes to file Vakalatnama and

take instructions from his client before the next date of hearing.

However, even today, Mr. Nahata seeks further time. Hence, I am not

convinced with the request made by Mr. Nahata. Hence, request made

by Mr. Nahata, learned Counsel for the Respondent stands rejected.

5. Both the transfer Applications has been filed by the Applicant,

who is the wife of the Respondent seeking transfer of her own divorce

proceeding and D. V. proceeding on the ground that now, she has

Anand 2 of 5
22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc

shifted to Pune and her daughter is also studying in School at Pune.

The Respondent is working at Hyderabad in Telangana State.

According to me, it will not make any difference to the Respondent, if

the proceedings are transferred from Mumbai to Pune.

6. 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
paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s
convenience which must be looked at while considering
transfer.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the

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

the Applicant has shifted to Pune and her daughter is also studying in a

Anand 3 of 5
22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc

School at Pune, according to me, a case is made out to allow the

Miscellaneous Civil Applications.

8. The Miscellaneous Civil Application No.146 of 2026 & the

Miscellaneous Civil Application (St.) No.13260 of 2026 stand allowed

in terms of prayer clause (a).

8.1 The proceeding, being the Marriage Petition (A) No. 547 of 2024

pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai be transferred to the

Family Court, Pune within a period of four weeks from today.

8.2 The proceeding, being the C.C.No. 383/DV/323 pending before

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 th Court, Borivali, Mumbai

be transferred to the Family Court, Pune within a period of four weeks

from today.

8.3 Both the proceedings be clubbed together and be heard by one

and the same Judge of the Family Court, Pune.

9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant is hereby permitted to convey

the Order passed today to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai.

10. The Registrar (Judicial–I) is hereby directed to communicate the

Order passed today to the Registrar of the Family Court, Bandra,

Mumbai and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 th Court,

Borivali, Mumbai by Email.

Anand 4 of 5
22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc

11. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Order.

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Anand 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…