Bombay High Court
Ayesha @ Tasnim Asif MujawarversusAsif Harun Mujawar
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The suit is to be transferred to the Family Court, Satara, as the wife’s convenience justifies the exercise of power under Section 24.
Summary
The applicant, a homemaker and sole caregiver of a six‑year‑old child, filed a miscellaneous civil application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of Regular Civil Suit No. 216 of 2025, filed by her husband, from the Civil Court at Vita, Sangli to the Family Court at Satara. She argued that she has no independent income, resides 110 km away from the present court, and would face considerable inconvenience, while the respondent, a labourer with health issues, opposed the transfer. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, which emphasizes that in matrimonial matters the wife’s convenience is a primary consideration under Section 24. After weighing the parties’ circumstances, the judge held that the inconvenience to the applicant outweighed any inconvenience to the respondent. Consequently, the suit was ordered to be withdrawn from the Sangli court and transferred to the appropriate court in Satara, and the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the regular civil suit concerning a matrimonial dispute should be transferred to a court nearer to the wife’s residence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24
Subjects
- Section 24 CPC
- transfer of suit
- matrimonial dispute
- legal aid
- wife's convenience
- family court
- maintenance
Judgment
1/6
907-MCA-4-2026 (C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2026
Ayesha @ Tasnim Asif Mujawar …...Applicant
VERSUS
Asif Harun Mujawar …...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, for the Applicant.
Mr. Ketan Patil, appointed Advocate for Respondent (Through Legal Aid).
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. When this matter is called out, neither the Respondent nor the
Advocate for the Respondent were present, either physically or through
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
V.C. mode.
2026.09.07
18:30:31
+0530
2. The record indicates that Advocate Mr. Sajid Ahmed Aklujjkar
was appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel to represent the Respondent.
However, when the matter was called out, the appointed Advocate was
absent. The matter was, therefore, kept back. Considering the urgency
expressed by Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr.
Ketan Patil, learned Advocate present in Court and was called upon to
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/6
907-MCA-4-2026 (C).DOC
assist the Court on behalf of the Respondent on the basis of the record
available.
3. Advocate Mr. Ketan Patil agreed to appear on behalf of the
Respondent.
4. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit
Bench at Kolhapur, to take note of appointment of Mr. Ketan Patil, as the
Advocate appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme to represent the
Respondent in this Application.
5. Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, learned Advocate for the Applicant
furnished the copy of the paper-book to Mr. Ketan Patil. Mr. Ketan Patil,
learned Advocate for the Respondent requested for a keep back of this
matter to study the same. After some time at the request of Mr. Ketan Patil
this matter was taken up for hearing.
6. Heard Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, learned Advocate for the Applicant
and Mr. Ketan Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent.
7. 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 order/writ for transfer of Regular Civil Suit No.216 of
2025 from the files of Ld. Civil Court, Vita, Dist. Sangli, to
the Family Court, Satara, District Satara.”
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/6
907-MCA-4-2026 (C).DOC
8. Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant (Wife) seeks transfer of Regular Civil Suit
No.216 of 2025 filed by the Respondent (Husband) before the Civil Court,
Vita, District Sangli, to the Family Court, Satara, District Satara, on the
following grounds:
(A) The Applicant is a homemaker residing in the District of Satara
and the sole caregiver of a minor child aged about six years,
born out of the wedlock with the Respondent.
(B) The Applicant has no independent source of income and the
distance between her place of residence and Satara is
approximately 110 kilometres.
9. On the aforesaid grounds, the Applicant submits that it would
cause considerable inconvenience to her to attend and pursue the
proceedings at Vita and, therefore, seeks transfer of the said proceedings to
the Family Court, Satara.
10. Mr. Ketan Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent, submits
that the Respondent is a labourer having ailment. He further submits that
the Respondent has also his brother a person with disability to maintain.
He therefore oppose this Application.
11. Perused the record.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/6
907-MCA-4-2026 (C).DOC
12. In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 1, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 9, has observed as follows:-
“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.”
13. The Applicant is a homemaker and has the responsibility of
maintaining and taking care of her 6 years old minor son. It is submitted
that she has no independent source of income and that she is not receiving
any financial support from her husband. Respondent though served in this
Application has not filed reply.
1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/6
907-MCA-4-2026 (C).DOC
14. Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits
that Respondent is not paying any maintenance to Applicant or to the
minor son.
15. Mr. Tehjeet A. Nadaf, learned Advocate for the Applicant, and
Mr. Ketan Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent, state that although
the proceedings are titled as Regular Civil Suit No.216 of 2025, the dispute
involved therein is, in substance, a matrimonial dispute.
16. Considering the difficulty expressed by the Applicant of the
Applicant being required to travel approximately 110 k.m. to pursue and
attend the proceedings at Sangli, I am of the view that the inconvenience
that would be caused to the Applicant would be much greater than the
inconvenience, if any, that may be caused to the Respondent. I, therefore,
deem it fit and proper to allow the present Application in terms of prayer
clause (a). Consequently, Regular Civil Suit No.216 of 2025, filed by the
Respondent and pending before the Civil Court, Vita, District Sangli, stands
withdrawn and transferred to the Civil Court, Satara, District Satara.
17. The Principal District Judge, Satara, is requested to assign
Regular Civil Suit No.216 of 2025 to the Court at Satara, having
jurisdiction to deal with the matrimonial and family dispute.
18. The Applicant shall produce a copy of this order before the
Principal District Judge, Satara.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/6
907-MCA-4-2026 (C).DOC
19. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit
Bench at Kolhapur, shall take a note of the appearance of Mr. Kunal Patil,
learned Advocate in this Application, shall quantify and pay the legal fees
payable to him under the Legal Aid Scheme for representing the
Respondent in this Application.
20. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.4 of 2026 is disposed of.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…