ASHA KIRAN PAWARversusKIRAN SUBHASH PAWAR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:40135


                       IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       916 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2026

                                      Asha Kiran Pawar
                                          VERSUS
                              Kiran Subhash Pawar And Another
                                             ...
                     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Satyajit Santosh Bora
                Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Bhushan I. Mahajan
                                             ...

                                CORAM      : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                Dated      : September 02, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    This is an application seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition

           No.367 of 2023 from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

           Ahmednagar, to the learned Family Court, Beed and Criminal

           Miscellaneous Application Nos.185 of 2020 and 125 of 2022 from the

           Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahuri, to the Court of

           learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed.



           2.    On a specific query made by this Court, the learned Advocate for

           the respondent states that HMP No.367 of 2023 is posted for evidence

           of the present applicant, who is respondent in the said marriage

           petition.



           3.    Likewise, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.185 of 2020,

           which is a proceeding instituted under the provisions of the Protection

           of Women from Domestic Violence Act, by the mother-in-law of the

                                            Page 1 of 4
                                                                916 MCA 195-2026



applicant, is also posted for evidence of the present applicant, who is

respondent in the said proceeding.



4.       Both these proceedings are at an advanced stage and are

likely to come to an end soon.



5.       It must also be stated that the mother-in-law of the applicant

has undergone an angioplasty procedure in the year 2025. She is

presently around 60 years of age.



6.       In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for transfer of

HMP No.367 of 2023 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.185

of 2020.



7.       As regards Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.125 of 2022,

the said proceeding is filed by the wife under the provisions of the

Protection     of   Women     from     Domestic    Violence   Act,   seeking

maintenance from the respondent-husband.



8.       It is stated that after filing of the said petition, the applicant-

wife was forcibly expelled from her matrimonial home despite order

dated 22nd September 2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class.



                                     Page 2 of 4
                                                          916 MCA 195-2026



9.    As regards the contention that the applicant-wife was forcibly

expelled from the matrimonial home, the allegation pertains to the

month of November 2024. A period of around 22 months has lapsed

since then. In the meantime, it is not the case of the applicant-wife

that she has not attended any of the proceedings at Rahuri or

Ahilyanagar.



10.   It is not the case of the applicant, nor has she made any

allegation about violence on any date or on any occasion when she

has attended the court proceedings, either before the Court at

Ahilyanagar or before the Court at Rahuri.



11.   The distance between Beed and Rahuri is around 150 km.

Rahuri is a taluka place near Shirdi. It is situated on the main

highway. The distance between the two places is hardly 150 km.



12.   In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this

Court, no case is made out for transfer of Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No.125 of 2022 from Rahuri to Beed, as prayed by the

applicant-wife. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, it is rejected.



13.   The applicant may apply for travelling expenses in the

marriage petition and Domestic Violence Act petition filed by her,

                               Page 3 of 4
                                                           916 MCA 195-2026



and not in the petition filed by the mother-in-law.



14.      The applicant may also seek permission for appearance

through video conferencing in all three matters.      In the event the

applicant - wife makes an application for appearance through video-

conferencing, the same may be considered favorably and permission

to appear through video-conferencing may be granted on such dates

and at such stages as is deemed appropriate by the learned

concerned Courts.




                                               ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                Page 4 of 4