The Applicant-wife sought the transfer of Marriage Petition No. 71/2016 from Vasai to Panvel due to age-related hardship and medical conditions. After hearing both parties, the court ruled in favor of the Applicant, citing her hardship in traveling and the principles set forth by the Supreme Court concerning the wife’s convenience in transfer matters. The court also addressed the issue of unpaid maintenance arrears by the Respondent-husband and the proper remuneration of Legal Aid Advocates, directing adherence to the honorarium schedule outlined in the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.

Para 1-2: Advocate Representation & Prayer Clause Amendment

• Mr. Ajgaonkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, sought to transfer the marriage petition from Vasai to Panvel, correcting an inadvertent request for transfer to the Family Court (which doesn't exist in Panvel) to the Civil Judge Senior Division at Panvel.

Para 3-4: Applicant’s Hardship

• The Applicant, aged 53, faces considerable hardship traveling between Panvel and Vasai. The court acknowledged the inconvenience, her pending maintenance arrears, and medical concerns, ruling in favor of the Applicant's request to transfer the petition.

Para 5: Respondent’s Objection

• The Respondent’s Advocate, Mr. Gawde, raised objections, emphasizing that the Respondent had to care for his paralyzed, elderly mother, making it difficult for him to attend court in Panvel.

Para 6-9: Court’s Decision

• The Court emphasized the Supreme Court’s principle that in transfer petitions, the wife’s convenience is paramount. The Respondent’s objections were considered, but the hardship to the Applicant was deemed greater. The court allowed the transfer and suggested that mediation may be pursued in the Panvel court.

Para 10-16: Legal Aid Advocate Fee Structure

• Advocate Ajgaonkar raised concerns about improper payment of honorariums to Legal Aid Advocates. The court directed the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee to ensure that Advocates are paid according to the prescribed fee structure under the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998, addressing broader issues of fairness in compensation.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9:

   • Concerning restitution of conjugal rights; basis of the Respondent's Marriage Petition No. 71/2016.

2. Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act):

   • Mentioned in relation to proceedings filed by the Applicant in JMFC Panvel.

3. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 – Regulation 18(1):

   • Governs the fee structure and payment to Legal Aid Advocates, which was a key issue raised in the case regarding proper remuneration.

Ratio Decidendi:

The hardship faced by the Applicant-wife due to her age, medical condition, and financial distress outweighs the Respondent’s objections. The Supreme Court’s precedent requires that, in matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife should be prioritized. Furthermore, the court stressed the need for the proper and timely payment of fees to Legal Aid Advocates, ensuring fair compensation for their work under the Legal Services Authority framework.

Subjects:

Transfer of matrimonial case due to wife’s hardship; fair remuneration of Legal Aid Advocates.

Transfer Petition, Matrimonial Law, Hindu Marriage Act, Legal Aid, Advocate Remuneration, Domestic Violence, Hardship of Wife, Family Court.