Karuna W/o Trisharan ChahandeversusTrisharan S/o Raju Chahande

2026:BHC-AUG:18934


                                                  1                              924.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2025

                             KARUNA W/O TRISHARAN CHAHANDE
                                              VERSUS
                               TRISHARAN S/O RAJU CHAHANDE
                                                 ...
                          Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ujwal Subhash Patil
                           Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Navin S. Shah
                                         h/f. Mr. S.S. Patil
                                                 ...
                                                 CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                 DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.          The Applicant has filed this Application for transferring the

              Petition No. A-1240/2022, pending before the learned Family Court,

              Nagpur, to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Chalisgaon.

              2.          Heard learned Advocates for both parties and perused the

              record.

              3.          On 28.11.2021, the marriage of the Applicant and the

              Respondent was solemnised at Chalisgaon, and after cohabiting together

              for some time, on 10.04.2022, the Applicant left the house and started

              residing with her parents at Chalisgaon.

              4.          It further appears that the husband has filed the Petition

              under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking judicial

              separation between them on the ground of cruelty. Similarly, Applicant
                                    2                          924.odt


has filed HMP No. 258/2023, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, Application under Section 12 of the Protection of Domestic Violence

Act and maintenance proceeding before the Court at Chalisgaon, and the

same are pending there. Therefore, the Applicant has moved the

Application for transferring the HMP proceeding bearing no. A-

1240/2022 from Nagpur to Chalisgaon.

5.           Learned Advocate for the Respondent vehemently resisted

the Application on the ground that the Applicant has made a false

statement in the Application. Therefore, on the ground alone, she is not

entitled to the relief as claimed. He also relied on paragraph nos. 4, 6,

and 7 of the affidavit-in-reply and contended that no prejudice would be

caused to the Applicant if the matter is not transferred from Nagpur to

Chalisgaon, as the Applicant was serving in the company, namely, E Soft

Technologies, and she was residing in Mumbai. Therefore, she is

accustomed to a fast and crowded life in Metro City. Therefore, he urged

that the application be rejected.

6.           No doubt as contended by the learned Advocate for the

respondent that the Applicant has made an incorrect statement in her

application that the Respondent is to give the counter to the proceeding

filed by her and to harass her, filed the petition bearing no. A-

1240/2022’. In fact, the Petition no. A-1240/2022, has been filed prior
                                     3                           924.odt


in time than the three proceedings filed by the Applicant and, therefore,

the question of countering the proceeding does not arise.

7.           Apart from that, it appears that three proceedings between

the same parties are pending at Chalisgaon. Therefore, to avoid the

multiplicity of trials on the same issues and the conflict of decisions, it

would be appropriate to transfer the HMP proceeding pending before

the Nagpur court to the Chalisgaon court.

8.           Apart from that, the Applicant is residing at Chalisgaon. She

does not have an income source and, therefore, attending the Court

proceeding in Nagpur would cause her inconvenience. It is not feasible

for her to attend the proceedings at Nagpur by travelling more than 400

km.

9.           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A. S.

Saravana Karthik Sha reported in AIR Online 2022 SC 1268, has observed

that 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, they

must take into account the economic soundness of both parties, the

social strata of the spouses, their behavioural patterns, their standard of

life before and after the marriage, and the circumstances. The court also
                                      4                           924.odt


has to exercise interference when one proceeding is pending before one

court and another proceeding is pending before another court; in such

events, it would be appropriate to transfer all proceedings to one court

to avoid inconvenience to the wife.

10.           Apart from that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of

judgments, has held that it would be appropriate to transfer the

proceedings to the place where the wife resides to avoid causing her any

inconvenience.

11.           Having considered the above facts that the Applicant has no

income source and it is inconvenient for the Applicant to travel and

attend the proceedings at Nagpur, it apparently indicates that she will

have to endure hardship and suffering. Consequently, in view of the

dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aishwarya (supra), in

my opinion, it would be appropriate to transfer the Petition No. A-

1240/2022, pending before the learned Family Court, Nagpur, to the

Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Chalisgaon.

12.           As a result, the Application is allowed in terms of the prayer

clause ‘B’.

13.           The Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.




                                               ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )
SPC