Bombay High Court
ARCHANA RAJESH DESAIversusRAJESH RAVSHAHEB DESAI
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The transfer of the Hindu Marriage Petition to the Family Court, Sangli is justified and ordered.
Summary
The applicant, a homemaker residing in Sangli with a minor child, filed a miscellaneous civil application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. A‑45 of 2024 from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan (Thane) to the Family Court, Sangli. The respondent, a practising advocate, failed to appear despite being served notice both regularly and privately. The court noted the applicant's lack of independent income, the 300+ km distance to the original court, and the financial and logistical hardship she would face. Relying on the principle that the ends of justice demand transfer in matrimonial matters, and citing N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the court held that the applicant’s convenience and economic soundness warranted relocation. Consequently, the petition was withdrawn from Kalyan and transferred to the Family Court, Sangli, and the application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Hindu Marriage Petition pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan should be transferred to the Family Court, Sangli under Section 24 of the CPC considering the applicant's financial constraints and inconvenience.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24
Subjects
- Section 24 CPC
- transfer of suit
- matrimonial jurisdiction
- family court
- financial hardship
- convenience of parties
- Hindu Marriage Petition
Judgment
1
931-MCA-362-2025 (C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2025
Archana Rajesh Desai …...Applicant
VERSUS
Rajesh Ravshaheb Desai …...Respondent
----
Ms. Preetam D. Raje a/w Adv. Shama Mulla, for Applicant.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.08.31
20:55:33
+0530
P.C.
1. Heard Ms. Preetam D. Raje, learned Advocate for the Applicant.
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. The record and proceeding of Petition (A) No.45 of 2024
filed by the Respondent before the Learned Civil Judge
Senior Division Kalyan, Thane may kindly be transferred to
the Ld. Family Court Sangli, District Sangli.”
3. On 3rd July, 2026, the following order was passed:
“1. The office note shows that the sole Respondent has been
served through his sister-in-law. However, none appears for
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
931-MCA-362-2025 (C).DOC
the sole Respondent. The trial has been stayed by the order
of this Court. Hence, issue fresh notice to the sole
Respondent, returnable on 17.07.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks permission to serve
the sole Respondent by private service, in addition to the
regular mode of service.
3. Permission is granted.
4. The Applicant shall serve the sole Respondent by private
service and shall file an affidavit of service on or before the
next date of hearing.
5. Stand over to 17.07.2026.
6. Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.”
4. Ms. Preetam D. Raje, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states
that pursuant to the order dated 3 rd July, 2026, the Affidavit of Service
dated 17th July, 2026, has been filed, stating that the private notice issued
to the Respondent has been duly served.
5. The Office Note dated 14th August, 2026 read thus:
“1) MCA filed through E-filing and photocopy is kept herewith.
2) As per Circular dated 18/06/2021, MCA is numbered.
3) As per Court’s Order dated 05/03/2026 Fresh Notice served
to sole Respondent, through his Sister-in-Law.
4) Cont. Writ put up to Lower Court.
5) As per Court’s Order dated 03/07/2026 fresh notice issued to
the Sole Respondent, received duly served.
6) Adv. For Applicant has tendered Affidavit of Service in Court
on 17/07/2026 is kept at flag “A”.”
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
931-MCA-362-2025 (C).DOC
6. Ms. Preetam D. Raje, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant (wife) is a homemaker with no independent
source of income. She further submits that the Applicant is residing in
District Sangli with her minor child, aged about 13 years. She submits that
the distance from District Sangli to Kalyan Thane is more than 300 kms.
She further submits that, due to financial constraints and inconvenience,
the Applicant seeks transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. A-45 of 2024,
pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, Thane, to the
Family Court, Sangli, District Sangli, where the Applicant is presently
residing.
7. Ms. Preetam D. Raje, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states
that the Respondent is a practising Advocate. She submits that despite
having been served twice with the notice issued in this Application,
including through private notice, the Respondent has willfully chosen not
to appear before this Court. She relies on the affidavit of service to submit
that the Respondent is served in this Application.
8. The name of the Respondent, namely, Rajesh Ravshaheb Desai,
was called out by the Court Sheristedar. However, neither the Applicant nor
any Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. It, therefore, appears
that the Respondent is not interested in contesting the request made by the
Applicant in this Application.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
931-MCA-362-2025 (C).DOC
9. Considering the statements made in the Application and the un-
rebutted submissions made by Ms. Preetam D. Raje on behalf of the
Applicant, particularly the inconvenience and financial constraints faced by
the Applicant (wife), who has no source of income and is responsible for
the maintenance and care of the minor daughter, in attending the
proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, Thane, a case
is made out for transfer of the proceedings from the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Kalyan, to the Family Court, District Sangli.
10. In the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 1,
in para 9, it has been 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
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5
931-MCA-362-2025 (C).DOC
wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering
transfer.”
11. In view of the above, the Application is allowed as prayed for in
clause (a). Consequently, Hindu Marriage Petition No. A-45 of 2024,
pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, District Thane, is
hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Sangli.
12. The Principal District Judge, Sangli, is requested to assign Hindu
Marriage Petition No. A-45 of 2024 to the Family Court, District Sangli.
13. The Applicant shall place a copy of this order before the
Principal District Judge, Sangli.
14. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.362 of 2025 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…