The Court must consider the socio-economic status of the parties, their hardships, and responsibilities towards minor children in deciding transfer applications. In this case, the severe hardship faced by the wife in traveling with her infant justified transferring the case to a more convenient court location.

The Court allows the transfer of a matrimonial petition from Vasai to the Family Court at Bandra, considering the severe hardship faced by the wife, who has a prematurely born infant to care for. The Court rejects the husband’s offer to cover travel expenses and criticizes his lack of empathy towards the wife's and child’s situation. The Court also imposes exemplary costs on the husband.

1. Parties Represented (Para 1)

• Applicant: Wife (represented by Ms. Contractor, Advocate)
• Respondent: Husband (represented by Mr. Tripathi, Advocate)

2. Relief Sought (Para 2)

• The wife seeks the transfer of Marriage Petition No. 11 of 2024 from Vasai Court to Bandra Family Court due to extreme travel hardship.

3. Applicant’s Circumstances (Para 3)

• The wife resides in Mahim with her parents and minor daughter (15 months old). The daughter was born prematurely and requires continuous care and medication. Her family bears all expenses.

4. Hardships Faced by Applicant (Para 4 - 4.2)

• The wife faces difficulties traveling to Vasai Court with her infant due to long travel hours, overcrowded trains, and public transport issues. Her elderly mother cannot care for the child in her absence.

5. Criminal Case and Maintenance Petition (Para 4.2 - 4.3)

• The wife has filed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC and a maintenance petition (No. E-324 of 2022) due to financial constraints.

6. Respondent’s Opposition (Para 5 - 5.1)

• The husband opposes the transfer and offers to cover her travel expenses. He cites Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha vs. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha (1997), but the Court finds the facts of this case irrelevant to the present situation.

7. Travel Difficulties (Para 6 - 6.2)

• The Court explains the wife's hardship due to the difficult and unsafe commute with her infant. Public transport challenges are emphasized.

8. Respondent’s Financial Status (Para 8)

• The husband runs three salons and is financially well-off, further weakening his case to resist the transfer.

9. Past Travel Experiences (Para 9)

• The wife pleads that previous trips to Vasai were unsafe and difficult, especially with her crying infant. The Court agrees with this assertion.

10. Socio-Economic Factors (Para 10)

• The Court cites N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), stressing the importance of considering the socio-economic conditions of both parties in matrimonial disputes.

11. Court’s Conclusion (Para 11)

• The Court upholds the wife’s submissions, rejecting the husband's opposition due to its insensitive nature. The absence of an Affidavit-in-Reply from the husband is noted.

12-14. Judgment and Costs (Para 12-14)

• The Court allows the transfer of the petition and imposes exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the husband due to his lack of empathy and protracted litigation strategy.

15-17. Enforcement and Conclusion (Para 15-17)

• Costs to be paid within two weeks, failing which recovery will be through land revenue proceedings.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 13(1)(i), 13(1)(ia)): Grounds for divorce, including cruelty.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 498-A): Relating to cruelty by the husband or relatives towards the wife.
• Case Law:
  • Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha vs. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha (1997): Not applicable as per facts of the case.
  • N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022): Socio-economic conditions of parties to be considered in matrimonial disputes.

Subjects:

Transfer of matrimonial proceedings, wife’s hardship, child welfare.

Matrimonial dispute, Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, Family Court, Transfer of case, Section 498-A, hardship, custody, divorce, child care, public transport, exemplary costs.