Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sarita Rahul Sharma (wife), filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No. 11 of 2024 filed by her husband, Rahul Udayraj Sharma, from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai, to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The wife resides in Mahim with her retired father, homemaker mother, two unmarried brothers, and her 15-month-old infant daughter, who was born prematurely and requires regular medication. The wife contended that traveling from Mahim to Vasai Court takes approximately 8 hours daily, involving a crowded local train journey and then a bus or auto-rickshaw ride of 6.7 km, which is extremely difficult with her infant child. She also filed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his family, and a maintenance petition in the Family Court at Bandra. The husband opposed the transfer, offering to bear the wife's travel expenses, and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and the Bombay High Court decision in Supriya v. Kamlesh. The court distinguished these precedents on facts, noting that the wife's situation involved an infant requiring constant care, and that the husband's offer was insensitive and inhumane. The court applied the principles from N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, emphasizing the convenience of the wife and child in matrimonial matters. The court allowed the application, directing the transfer of the Marriage Petition from Vasai to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, and directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs to the wife within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings - Section 24 CPC - Hardship and Convenience - Wife sought transfer of Marriage Petition from Vasai to Bandra due to difficulty in traveling with her 15-month-old infant daughter who requires constant care and medical attention - Court allowed transfer, holding that the husband's offer to bear travel expenses was no solace given the arduous journey and the wife's responsibilities (Paras 6-10). B) Precedent - Distinguishing Facts - Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha - Transfer of Succession Application - Facts distinguished as the present case involves a matrimonial dispute with an infant child requiring care, unlike the earlier case where only travel expenses were at issue (Paras 6-6.2). C) Precedent - Distinguishing Facts - Supriya v. Kamlesh - Transfer of Proceedings - Facts distinguished as the husband in that case suffered from a medical ailment, whereas in the present case the wife faces unique hardship with an infant child (Para 7). D) Precedent - Application of Principle - N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha - Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings - Principles regarding convenience of the wife and child applied in favor of the applicant (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Marriage Petition filed by the husband at Vasai should be transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, considering the wife's difficulty in traveling with her 15-month-old infant daughter and her financial constraints.
Final Decision
The court allowed the Miscellaneous Civil Application and directed the transfer of Marriage Petition No. 11 of 2024 from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The respondent-husband was directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the applicant-wife within two weeks.
Law Points
- Transfer of matrimonial proceedings
- convenience of wife with infant child
- hardship and safety considerations
- ipso facto application of precedent
- Section 24 CPC
