Bombay High Court
Pooja Tushar Divekar And Anr.versusTushar Santaram Divekar
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The application for transfer under Section 24 CPC is allowed, and the petition is transferred to the Family Court, Sangli.
Summary
The applicants, a wife and mother of a minor child, filed a miscellaneous civil application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of a family court petition from the Family Court, Kolhapur to the Family Court, Sangli, alleging unemployment, sole caregiving responsibilities and a 45‑kilometre distance as grounds for inconvenience. The respondent, a driver, contested the request, arguing that the distance is minimal, the route is well‑connected, and that the transfer request is mala fide, while also offering maintenance for the child. The court noted the respondent’s fair stance but chose not to examine the merits of the inconvenience claim in detail. Relying on the provisions of Section 24 CPC, the court allowed the application and ordered the transfer of Petition A No. 291 of 2025 to the Family Court, Sangli. The application was thereafter disposed of, with the respondent invited to seek video‑conferencing facilities for future appearances.
Issues considered
- Whether the family court proceedings can be transferred from Kolhapur to Sangli under Section 24 of the CPC on the ground of alleged inconvenience to the applicant.
- Whether the request for transfer is mala fide and should be denied.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Section 24 CPC
- transfer of jurisdiction
- family court
- domestic violence
- maintenance
- child welfare
- procedural law
Judgment
914 - MCA - 62 - 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV RAMESH
RAMESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.10.09
20:45:35
+0530 Pooja Tushar Divekar & Anr. … Applicants
V/s.
Tushar Santaram Divekar … Respondent
Ms. Sampada Patil with Mr. Abhay A. Jadhavar for the
Applicants.
Mr. Akshay Jagtap with Mr. Sanket Chougule for the
Respondent.
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 9, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Sampada Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants,
and Mr. Akshay Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicants have sought the following
substantive relief:
“a) The proceedings of Petition A. No. of 2025 filed before the Family
Court Kolhapur, At – Kolhapur be transferred from Ld. Family Court Kolhapur,
At – Kolhapur, to the Family Court Sangli, At – Sangli, having jurisdiction to
try and entertain the matter.”
3. Ms. Sampada Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, states
that Applicant No. 1 (wife) is seeking transfer of the proceedings from
VRJ 1
914 - MCA - 62 - 2026.docx
Kolhapur to the Sangli Court on two grounds: first, that Applicant No. 1
is unemployed and is the sole caregiver of Applicant No.2 (minor child)
and second, that the distance from Kolhapur to Sangli is 45 kilometres.
She further submits that Applicant No. 1 has filed proceedings under
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class at Sangli, wherein the Respondent has engaged an Advocate and
appears on a regular basis.
4. Mr. Akshay Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondent, states
that the Respondent is a driver by occupation and is ready to give an
amount towards the maintenance of Applicant No.2 (minor child) as a
responsible father. He submits that the request made by the Applicants
for transfer is mala fide. To elaborate, he submits that the distance from
Sangli to Kolhapur is hardly 45 kilometres and is well connected by
road transport.
5. Ms. Sampada Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, on
instructions from Applicant No. 1, has declined the offer made by the
Respondent to give a certain sum towards the maintenance of Applicant
No.2 (minor child) and she insists on the transfer of the proceedings.
6. In view of the rigid stand taken by the Applicant No.1, wherein
the Applicant No.1 has declined the offer of maintenance for the
Applicant No.2, Mr. Akshay Jagtap, learned Advocate for the
VRJ 2
914 - MCA - 62 - 2026.docx
Respondent, on instructions from the Respondent, who is present in
Court, in all fairness, states that Petition A No. 291 of 2025 filed by him
before the Family Court, Kolhapur, be transferred to the Family Court,
Sangli.
7. In view of the fair stand of the Respondent, without going into
the merits of the purported claim of inconvenience made by the
Applicant No.1, this Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Consequently, Petition A No. 291 of 2025 is withdrawn from the Family
Court, Kolhapur, and transferred to the Family Court at Sangli.
8. Mr. Akshay Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondent, submits
that the Family Court at Sangli is equipped with video conferencing
facilities and that the Respondent shall apply to the Court for
appearance through VC. If such an application is made, the same be
considered by the Family Court, Sangli.
9. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 62 of 2026 stands disposed
of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
VRJ 3
Checking your session…