VAISHALI SHRIDHAR JAGTAP Vs. SHRIDHAR VISHWANATH JAGTAP

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6159-6160 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jul 08, 2016

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                   CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   6159-6160   OF 2016
             (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 15558-15559 of 2014)


VAISHALI SHRIDHAR JAGTAP                        ...  APPELLANT (S)

                                   VERSUS

SHRIDHAR VISHWANATH JAGTAP                      ... RESPONDENT (S)


                           J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

KURIAN, J.:


   Leave granted.

The appellant is the wife of the respondent.  She  is  aggrieved  since  the
High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai  by  the
respondent for divorce,  to  Barshi  where  the  appellant  resides-parental
home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has  taken  the
view that the appellant does not have to travel on all  days  for  defending
the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a  sum  of  rupees
one thousand five hundred.

According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult  for  her
mother to accompany the appellant for her  travel  to  Mumbai.  It  is  also
stated that there are three  criminal  cases  -  one  for  maintenance,  the
second under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act,  2005  and  the  third
under Section 498A  of  The  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  and  other  related
provisions, pending at Barshi, and one on the civil side for restitution.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed  the
prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant’s  mother  is  only
60 years old and that she has two brothers. It  is  also  pointed  out  that
majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and  it  would  be  difficult  for
them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt  is  to  harass  the
respondent-husband.

Admittedly,  the  distance  between  Mumbai  and  Barshi   is   around   400
kilometres.  Four  cases  between  the  parties  are  pending   at   Barshi.
Apparently, the comparative hardship is more  to  the  appellant-wife.  This
aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take  note
of.

In view of the  above,  the  impugned  orders  are  set  aside  and  the  M.
J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family  Court
Bandra,  Bombay  will  stand  transferred  to   the   court   of   competent
jurisdiction at Barshi.
The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs.



                                        ..................................J.
                                                       (KURIAN JOSEPH)



                                                        ......………………………………J.
                                                (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi;
July 8, 2016.
-----------------------
                                                              NON-REPORTABLE



-----------------------
3