RENUSHRI SACHIN GHARGEversusPRAKASH KHANDU GHARGE

                                                           30-MCA-234-2026.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2026
Swapnil
          Renushri Sachin Gharge.                          …Applicant
               Vs.
          Prakash Khandu Gharge.                           …Respondent

          Ms. Pooja Sanjay Phagnekar for the applicant.
          Mr. Sumit V. S. a/w. Mr Abhishek S. Raskar, Mr
          Harshavardhan K. Jadhav for the respondent.

                                  CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                  DATE :       19th AUGUST 2026

          ORDER :


          1.    This miscellaneous civil application is filed by the

          original defendant no. 1, seeking transfer of the suit filed in

          the Pune Court to the Court at Kolhapur. The suit is filed for a

          declaration that the respondent is the owner of the suit

          property and for an injunction. The respondent, i.e. the

          original plaintiff, is the father-in-law of the present applicant.

          Defendant no. 2, who is occupying the suit property, is not

          made a party to the present application.


          2.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

          respondent resides in Satara District and therefore, if the suit

          is transferred to Kolhapur, it would be convenient even for

                                         1/5
                                               30-MCA-234-2026.docx


the respondent. She submits that the applicant is a widow

residing in Kolhapur, and that serious hardship would be

caused to her if she is required to travel from Kolhapur to

Pune, which is approximately 230 km. She submits that the

distance from Kolhapur to Satara, where the plaintiff resides,

is hardly 123 KM. Hence, no hardship would be caused to

the respondent if the suit is transferred to Kolhapur.

However, the applicant would suffer greater hardship, as she

would be required to travel till Pune, which is 230 km from

Kolhapur, where she resides. She further submits that there

was never any matrimonial dispute between the applicant

and her deceased husband. However, only to cause

inconvenience and harass the applicant, the father-in-law

has filed the suit in court in Pune. She, therefore, submits

that sufficient grounds have been made out to transfer the

suit from the court at Pune to the court at Kolhapur.


3.    Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points

out the averments in the suit. He submits that the cause title

mentions the address in Satara, as his regular residence was

there. However, the suit property is situated at Pune. He

relies upon the pleadings in paragraph 27 of the plaint to



                              2/5
                                                 30-MCA-234-2026.docx


support his submissions that the respondent has undergone

a heart bypass surgery in Ruby Hall Clinic Hospital at Pune

and he needs constant care and attention. He submits that

since the respondent has lost his wife and son, he is required

to live with his daughter who resides in Pune.


4.   Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as

pleaded in the plaint, the respondent has already shifted to

Pune and is residing with his daughter. He, therefore,

submits that the greater inconvenience and hardship would

be caused to the respondent if the suit is transferred from the

court at Pune to the court at Kolhapur. He further submits

that the applicant is 34 years of age and is a Doctor by

profession.   Hence,   the   ground   raised     regarding    her

inconvenience in travelling is unacceptable. He submits that

the respondent is above 69 years of age and is ailing;

therefore, would face greater hardship and inconvenience.


5.   I have perused the plaint. Learned counsel for the

respondent is right in pointing out that the respondent, who is

a retired and old person, is also suffering from health issues

and had already pleaded in the plaint that he would be

shifting to Pune with his daughter. I do not see any reason to


                              3/5
                                               30-MCA-234-2026.docx


disbelieve the pleadings in the plaint.


6.    So far as the applicant’s grounds of inconvenience

because she is a widow cannot be entertained, as she is an

independent woman of 34 years of age and only distance

cannot be a ground of inconvenience. The second ground,

regarding the absence of a matrimonial dispute between the

applicant and her husband, is irrelevant to the prayer for

transfer. Except for stating that the applicant is a widow

residing in Kolhapur, there is no other ground that would

require any consideration in support of the prayer for transfer.

Considering that the plaintiff has shifted to Pune due to his

old age and illness, the objection raised on behalf of the

respondent that it would be inconvenient for the applicant to

travel to Kolhapur is justified. I do not see any inconvenience

or greater hardship to the applicant for transferring the suit

from Pune to Kolhapur.


7.    In view of the aforesaid facts, greater inconvenience

and hardship would be caused to the respondent if the suit is

transferred from Pune to Kolhapur. In the absence of any

satisfactory and valid ground for transfer, the prayer for

transfer is rejected.


                               4/5
                                            30-MCA-234-2026.docx


8.    For the reasons recorded above, the miscellaneous

civil application is dismissed.




                                        [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                                  5/5