Bombay High Court
SWARA SUSHIL KHEDEKAR NEE MS SHRUTI SHASHIKANT DALVIversusSHUSHIL SATISH KHEDEKAR
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The transfer application is dismissed because the balance of convenience lies with the respondent, and the divorce proceedings should remain in the forum chosen by the respondent.
Summary
The wife, Mrs. Swara Sushil Khedekar, filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of the divorce petition filed by her husband from the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed to the Family Court in Thane, where she resides and works. She argued that the distance and her matrimonial home in Mumbai justified the transfer. The husband opposed, stating he resides in Ratnagiri, has sole custody of their six‑year‑old son, runs a business there, and that transferring the case would cause severe inconvenience and affect the child’s education and welfare. The court examined the balance of convenience, noting the child’s needs and the respondent’s hardship, and referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that a wife’s request for transfer is not absolute. Consequently, the court dismissed the transfer application, allowing the divorce proceedings to continue in Khed, and suggested the wife may seek video‑conferencing for participation.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 24 CPC for transferring divorce proceedings.
- Whether the balance of convenience favors transferring the case to Thane.
- The impact of child custody and welfare considerations on the decision to transfer jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24
Subjects
- family law
- divorce
- transfer of proceedings
- balance of convenience
- child custody
- Code of Civil Procedure
- Section 24
- jurisdiction
- gender bias
Judgment
1/6
905-MCA-291-2024 (C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 2024
Mrs. Swara Sushil Khedekar ]
(nee Ms. Shruti Shashikant Dalvi) ]
Age: 34 years, Occ: Service, ]
Rat: A/3-16, Jai Santoshi Mata CHS, ]
Plot No.66, Near Kanaya Nagar, ]
Kopri Colony, Thane (E) – 400603 ] …... Applicant
VERSUS
Mr. Shushil Satish Khedekar ]
Age: 38 years, Occ: Business ]
R/at: Maishree / Mahalakshmi Nagar, ]
Kolekhajan Road, Khed, ]
Chiplun, Tal. Chiplun, ]
Digitally
Dist. Ratnagiri – 415605 ] …… Respondent
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.10.03
----
11:49:32
+0530
Mr. Shantanu Gurav a/w Mr. Shubham Vasekar i/b Adv. Madhur Salkar, for
Applicant.
Mr. Someshwar M. Wale a/w Ms. Pooja S. Wale, for the Respondent.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.
ORAL ORDER :-
1. Heard, Mr. Shantanu Gurav, learned Advocate for the Applicant
and Mr. Someshwar M. Wale, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/6
905-MCA-291-2024 (C).DOC
2. By the present Application filed under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicant has sought the following substantial
relief:
“(a) This Hon’ble Court kindly allow the present Application and
transfer the Divorce Petition filed by the Respondent bearing
Marriage Petition No.50/2024 from the Court of Hon’ble
Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed to the Hon’ble
Family Court, Thane, Maharashtra or the Court of equivalent
jurisdiction in Thane, Maharashtra.”
3. The Applicant (wife) has approached this Court seeking transfer
of Marriage Petition No. 50 of 2024, filed by the Respondent (husband)
before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed,
District Ratnagiri, to the Family Court at Thane, Maharashtra. The
Applicant seeks transfer of the proceedings on the ground that she resides
in Thane, where her elderly parents also live. Thane is approximately 200
to 250 kilometres from Khed, District Ratnagiri. She has a workplace in
Thane.
4. Mr. Shantanu Gurav, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits
that in addition to the aforesaid grounds, the Applicant also seeks transfer
of the proceedings on the ground that her matrimonial home is situated at
Chembur, Mumbai.
5. Mr. Someshwar M. Wale, learned Advocate for the Respondent,
opposes the Application and submits that the Applicant is employed as an
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/6
905-MCA-291-2024 (C).DOC
Assistant Manager (Marketing) at the Regional Office of Canara Bank,
Thane and draws a substantial salary. He further submits that the
Respondent resides in District Ratnagiri and has custody of the minor son,
aged six years, born out of wedlock to the Applicant. The Respondent is the
sole caregiver of the minor child, who is pursuing his education in District
Ratnagiri. He further submits that the Respondent runs a small business in
District Ratnagiri, which is his sole source of income for maintaining
himself and the minor child. He therefore submits that transferring the
proceedings to Thane would cause severe inconvenience and hardship to
the Respondent and adversely affect his responsibility to care for the minor
son.
6. Mr. Someshwar M. Wale, learned Advocate for the Respondent,
further submits that to date, the Applicant has neither visited the minor
child nor inquired about his well-being nor applied for visitation rights. He
further submits that the Applicant has filed this Application solely to harass
and cause anguish to the Respondent. He therefore submits that this
Application be dismissed with compensatory costs payable by the Applicant
to the Respondent.
7. As the statement made by Mr. Someshwar M. Wale, learned
Advocate for the Respondent, that the minor son is with the Respondent, is
not disputed by Mr. Shantanu Gurav, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
when asked whether the Applicant has sought parenting time with the
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/6
905-MCA-291-2024 (C).DOC
minor child or filed any application to that effect, Mr. Shantanu Gurav
answered in the negative.
8. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates
for the parties.
9. The Applicant is employed with a reputed bank as an Assistant
Manager in Thane. The Respondent has sole care and responsibility for the
minor child, who is pursuing his education in District Ratnagiri. The
Respondent carries on his business and resides in District Ratnagiri. These
facts are not in dispute.
10. Apart from ensuring the child's education, the Respondent’s
obligation is also to attend to the minor child's other needs/extracurricular
activities in Ratnagiri, where the child resides.
11. Thus, considering the collective effect of the aforesaid
circumstances, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondent.
The inconvenience that would be caused to the Respondent if the
proceedings are transferred from Khed, District Ratnagiri, to Thane would
be far greater than any inconvenience likely to be caused to the Applicant if
the proceedings continue before the Court at Khed.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kunta Nihasvi @
Gaddam Madhuri v. Kunta Srinivas², observed in paragraph 8.1 as follows:
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/6
905-MCA-291-2024 (C).DOC
“8.1. At the same time, the aforesaid principle favouring the
convenience of the wife should not be understood as laying
down an inflexible rule that the wife’s request for transfer
must invariably be accepted. If the facts of a particular case
demonstrate that the balance of convenience lies in favour of
the husband and that the proceedings ought to continue in
the chosen forum, Courts must exercise caution and refrain
from interfering.”
13. In Anindita Das v. Srijit Das¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in paragraph 3 as follows:
“3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this
Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it
has been found that a large number of transfer petitions
are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency
shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15
transfer petitions are on board of each court on each
admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this
Court is being misused by the women.”
14. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am
of the view that Marriage Petition No. 50 of 2024 ought to proceed in the
forum chosen by the Respondent.
15. No case is made out to entertain this Application. Accordingly,
the Transfer Application filed by the Applicant is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
16. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/6
905-MCA-291-2024 (C).DOC
17. Upon this order being dictated, Mr. Shantanu Gurav, learned
Advocate for the Applicant, submits that video conferencing facilities are
available before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Khed, District Ratnagiri and that the Applicant will apply to the Court to
appear by video conferencing in Marriage Petition No. 50 of 2024. This is a
fair statement. Subject to compliance with the video conferencing rules,
the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed, District
Ratnagiri, to consider the said request of the Applicant.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…