Bombay High Court
Bhakti Saurabh Yadav Maiden Name Ms Bhakti Vijay UdanurversusSaurabh Sanjay Yadav
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the petition for transfer under Section 24 CPC is justified and ordered the marriage petition to be transferred to the Family Court at Solapur.
Summary
The applicant, a wife, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of a marriage petition (A‑No.1845/2025) from the Family Court at Pune to the Family Court at Solapur. She argued that she is financially dependent, has aged parents to care for, and faces a 265 km travel burden, while the respondent contended that attending proceedings in Solapur would jeopardise his employment. The applicant also highlighted three criminal cases she had earlier filed against the respondent in Solapur, which the respondent was already attending. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, emphasized that the primary consideration in matrimonial matters is the wife’s convenience and economic hardship. Finding that the applicant’s inconvenience outweighed that of the respondent, the court allowed the transfer and ordered the petition to be withdrawn from Pune and assigned to Solapur.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits transfer of family court proceedings in matrimonial matters.
- Whether the applicant's economic dependence and caregiving responsibilities justify transfer of the petition.
- Whether the respondent's inconvenience and employment concerns outweigh the applicant's hardship.
- Whether pending criminal proceedings in Solapur affect the decision to transfer the matrimonial petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24
Subjects
- transfer of suit
- Section 24 CPC
- family court jurisdiction
- matrimonial proceedings
- economic hardship
- pending criminal cases
- wife's convenience
Judgment
1/4
16-MCA-26-2026 (C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2026
Bhakti Saurabh Yadav Maiden
Name Ms Bhakti Vijay Udanur …...Applicant
VERSUS.
Saurabh Sanjay Yadav …...Respondent
-----
Mr. Ashitosh G. Pawar (Through VC), for Applicant.
Mr. Sujay Joshi (Through VC), for the Respondent.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
1. Heard, Mr. Ashitosh G. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.09.15
17:41:22
+0530
and Mr. Sujay Joshi, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
2. By this Application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the Applicant has sought the following substantial relief,
as reproduced verbatim:
“A. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate
order under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
and transfer the proceedings being Petition A-
No.1845/2025 before the Hon’ble Family Court at Pune
to the Family Court at Solapur.”
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/4
16-MCA-26-2026 (C).DOC
3. The Applicant (wife) has sought transfer of Marriage Petition A -
No.1845 of 2025, filed by the Respondent (husband) before the Family
Court at Pune, to the Family Court at Solapur, on the following grounds:
A. The Applicant has no independent source of income and is
entirely dependent on her family.
B. The distance between Pune and Solapur is approximately
265 kilometres each way.
C. The Applicant has her two aged and ailing parents to look
after, and therefore attending and pursuing the proceedings
before the Family Court at Pune causes her inconvenience
and hardship.
4. Mr. Ashitosh G. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant has filed three (3) criminal proceedings against
the Respondent and his family members before the Criminal Courts in
District Solapur. He further states that the aforesaid three (3) proceedings
were filed earlier.
5. Mr. Sujay Joshi, learned Advocate for the Respondent, submits
that although the Respondent is employed in a private company, it would
be inconvenient for him to attend the Family Court at Solapur, as he would
have to be absent from his job, which may put his employment at risk.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/4
16-MCA-26-2026 (C).DOC
6. Mr. Sujay Joshi, learned Advocate for the Respondent, however,
does not dispute the statement made by Mr. Ashitosh G. Pawar, learned
Advocate for the Applicant, that the Applicant has filed three (3) criminal
proceedings against the Respondent and his family members, which are
pending before the Courts at Solapur and that the Respondent is attending
those proceedings.
7. Perused the record.
8. In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 1, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in paragraph 9, has observed 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 the 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
of 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.”
9. Considering the difficulties expressed by the Applicant in
attending to and pursuing Marriage Petition A No. 1845 of 2025, which is
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/4
16-MCA-26-2026 (C).DOC
pending before the Family Court at Pune and bearing in mind that the
three (3) criminal proceedings instituted by the Applicant against the
Respondent and his family members, which are pending before the Courts
at Solapur and were filed prior to the filing of Marriage Petition A No.
1845 of 2025, the inconvenience that would be caused to the Applicant
would be much greater than the inconvenience that would be caused to the
Respondent if Marriage Petition A No. 1845 of 2025 is transferred to
Solapur.
10. In view of the above, the Application is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (A). Consequently, Marriage Petition A-No. 1845 of 2025
pending before the Family Court at Pune is hereby withdrawn and
transferred to the Family Court at Solapur.
11. The Applicant shall place a copy of this order before the
Principal District Judge, Solapur, to enable assignment of Marriage Petition
A-No. 1845 of 2025 to the concerned Family Court at Solapur.
12. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.372 of 2025 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…