Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by the applicant-wife seeking transfer of a divorce case pending before the Family Court at Pune to the Civil Court, Senior Division, Kalamb, District Osmanabad. The applicant was a 37-year-old housewife residing in Osmanabad, and the respondent was her husband, aged 39, employed in a private software company and residing in Pune. The marriage was solemnized on 5 April 2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals and was described as an inter-caste love marriage. The respondent had initiated divorce proceedings before the Family Court at Pune. The applicant contended that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and his parents, that the respondent was an alcoholic, and that he had extramarital relations. She stated she had attended the Pune Court on a few occasions, at least two of which the court was on leave. She claimed financial dependence on her parents, and sought transfer because the distance between Osmanabad and Pune was approximately 280 km, she suffered from diabetes, hypertension, and piles, and each visit cost about ₹10,000. She also expressed willingness to cohabit with the respondent. The respondent opposed the transfer, alleging it was a tactical move to delay proceedings fixed for final hearing. He pointed out that he was the sole earning member, had to care for his ailing mother after his father's death, and that travel to Osmanabad would be equally inconvenient and could jeopardize his job. He relied on the roznama showing the applicant's advocate appearing, and submitted that the Family Court had video conferencing facilities. He was willing to bear ₹3,000 per appearance, though the affidavit initially mentioned ₹1,500–2,000. The core question was whether the applicant had made out sufficient grounds of hardship and convenience to warrant transfer, and whether the application was an abuse of process intended to delay an advanced case. The applicant placed reliance on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & Ors. and Sunita v. Baliram, arguing that courts consider the hardship and life circumstances of wives seeking transfer. The respondent relied on Anindita Das v. Srijit Das and Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam to contend that each transfer petition must be considered on its own facts, courts must guard against abuse of leniency, and video conferencing should be encouraged instead of transfer. The High Court found substance in the respondent's submissions. It noted that the applicant had appeared before the Family Court on multiple occasions and the matter was slated for final arguments, and the roznama revealed adequate opportunity had been afforded. The court referred to the Family Court order dated 18 November 2024 recording deliberate delay by the applicant for over four years; her application to set aside the 'no written statement' order was rejected due to delay; examination-in-chief was filed on 18 January 2024 but she remained absent and unrepresented, resulting in a 'no-cross' order on 22 February 2024; she remained absent for nearly seven months thereafter. The court relied on Abhilasha Gupta v Harimohan Gupta, wherein the Supreme Court held that a matter at an advanced stage of trial ought not to be transferred. The High Court found the allegations in the application vague, unsupported, and self-contradictory, noting the willingness to cohabit despite cruelty allegations, and that the reference to 'parents' was misleading because the father-in-law was deceased. It held that the inconvenience to the respondent outweighed the applicant's pleaded inconvenience, and that the application was a strategic attempt to delay proceedings and misused the process. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court clarified that the applicant was at liberty to seek permission from the Family Court, Pune to appear via video conferencing, and the Family Court would consider such request on merits. If personal presence was required, the respondent was directed to pay ₹5,000 per appearance towards travel expenses. The Family Court was directed to dispose of the matter finally preferably within three months of uploading of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings - Advanced Stage of Trial Bars Transfer - Not mentioned - The applicant sought transfer of a divorce case from Family Court Pune to Kalamb, but the matter was fixed for final arguments and the applicant had appeared earlier; relying on Abhilasha Gupta v Harimohan Gupta, the court held that where the matter is at an advanced stage of trial it ought not to be transferred; the transfer application was treated as a strategic attempt to delay the proceedings (Paras 14-18). B) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Comparative Hardship between Spouses - Not mentioned - Applicant pleaded distance of about 280 km, health issues, financial dependence, and travel cost of about ₹10,000 per visit; respondent contended he was sole earner, had to care for his ailing mother, and travel would jeopardize his job; court held the inconvenience to the respondent outweighed the inconvenience pleaded by the applicant and that her averments were unconvincing (Paras 6-11, 20). C) Civil Procedure - Video Conferencing - Alternative to Transfer - Not mentioned - The Family Court at Pune was equipped with video conferencing facilities, and transfer is not always the appropriate remedy; the court directed that the applicant may seek permission to appear via video conferencing, to be considered on merits, and if personal presence is required, the respondent shall pay ₹5,000 per appearance towards travel expenses (Paras 11, 22-23). D) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Vague and Contradictory Allegations - Not mentioned - The applicant alleged cruelty and harassment but simultaneously expressed willingness to cohabit; reference to 'parents' was misleading as father-in-law was deceased and respondent lived only with ailing mother; no explanation for not seeking transfer earlier or not availing video conferencing; court held such misuse of process cannot be permitted (Paras 19-20). E) Civil Procedure - Costs and Directions - Early Disposal - Not mentioned - Application dismissed with no order as to costs; Family Court Pune directed to dispose of the matter finally preferably within three months of uploading of the High Court order (Paras 21, 24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant-wife was entitled to transfer of divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court at Pune to the Civil Court, Senior Division, Kalamb, Osmanabad, considering her allegations of hardship and the respondent's claim of delay and inconvenience.
Final Decision
Application dismissed with no order as to costs. Applicant at liberty to seek permission from Family Court, Pune to appear via video conferencing, and Family Court shall consider such request on merits. If personal presence required, respondent shall pay ₹5,000 per appearance towards applicant's travel and related expenses. Family Court, Pune directed to dispose of matter finally preferably within three months of uploading of order.
Law Points
- Transfer of matrimonial proceedings may be refused when the matter is at an advanced stage of trial
- courts must guard against abuse of leniency in transfer petitions
- each transfer petition must be considered on its own facts
- video conferencing is encouraged to reduce hardship and need for physical appearances
- balance of convenience determines transfer
- vague unsupported and self-contradictory allegations discredit the applicant
- deliberate delay and non-cooperation bar transfer
- respondent directed to pay travel expenses if personal presence is required
