Smt. Priyanka Patro v. Shri Arvind Rajasekar

1. When the matter is called out, Mr.Arjun Jeswani, learned counsel appears for the Respondent and informs that mediation has failed. Perusal of the record indicates that there is a sealed cover. The learned Sheristedar has opened the sealed cover, which contains the mediation report dated 3rd October, 2023. A perusal of the same indicates that the mediation has failed. The said report is shared with the learned counsel for the parties, and after their perusal, it is taken on record and marked “X” for the purposes of identification. Priya R. Soparkar 1 of 9 2023:BHC-AS:29780

2. The learned counsel submit that they are ready to proceed with the matter.

3. This is an application seeking transfer of divorce proceedings filed by the Applicant before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune.

4. Mr.Harshad Rathod, learned counsel for the Applicant would submit that the marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent was solemnized on 11th July, 2019 in Chembur, Mumbai as per Hindu customs and rituals and thereafter, the couple started residing at Dombivli. It is submitted that around the first week of August, 2019 the Applicant and the Respondent due to their professional work shifted to Pune and continued to reside at Pune at their matrimonial home.

5. It is the case of the Applicant that in or around 16th December, 2021 after man-handling the Applicant, the Respondent left the Applicant and went back to Dombivli for living with his parents.

6. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the Applicant having no other option hired another house at Dighi in Pune to live with her mother. Priya R. Soparkar 2 of 9

7. Around 16th April, 2021, the Applicant has filed a non-cognizable police complaint against the Respondent.

8. On 20th January, 2022 the Respondent filed divorce petition against the Applicant before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan.

9. Mr.Harshad Rathod, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the wife has filed two proceedings in Pune, one is a First Information Report (FIR) inter-alia under section 498A of Indian Penal Code and also a domestic violence proceeding in Pune. He would submit that the Applicant is a software professional working with Hexaware Technologies and staying with her mother. Learned counsel would submit that as per company policy, the Applicant opted for work from home as her mother had been suffering from cancer. Learned counsel would submit that although she has now recovered, however, the mother has suffered from cancer twice, once in the year 2014 which was cured in the year 2015 and second time in the year 2020 which has also been cured. However, the mother requires monthly follow-up with the doctor and the Applicant not only takes care of the mother at home but also accompanies her for the follow-up sessions. Learned counsel would submit that Applicant has a younger brother but he is not staying with the Applicant and the mother. Learned counsel would submit that travelling from Pune to Kalyan to and fro is about 300 kilometers and there is no one to accompany the Applicant to Kalyan. Priya R. Soparkar 3 of 9 Learned Counsel submits that travel would also cause physical fatigue to the Applicant. Learned counsel would submit that for the Applicant to travel from Pune to Kalyan every time the matter is listed, would not only be inconvenient in the circumstances of the case but also cause undue hardship. He therefore, submits that the divorce proceedings filed by the husband in Kalyan be transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune.

10. Mr.Arjun Jeswani, learned counsel for the Respondent-husband opposes the application. He refers to the reply dated 25th June, 2023. Learned counsel would submit that in fact the mother of the Applicant is fit and fine. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to pages 78 and 79 of the reply and submits that these are pictures taken of the mother and the Applicant when they had visited Dombivli to procure the stridhan. Learned counsel would submit that on the other hand the Respondent himself had undergone surgery for kidney stone. He seeks to draw the attention of the Court to page 85 which contains the discharge summary pursuant to the said operation. Learned counsel would submit that even the mother of the Respondent, who is a key witness, has several health issues and has been advised not to travel on medical grounds. Learned counsel draws the attention of this court to page 80 which contains the mother’s discharge summary. Learned counsel submit that even the father has been advised not to travel. He would submit that both the mother and the father who would be witnesses in the case have been advised not to Priya R. Soparkar 4 of 9 travel. They are fully dependant on the Respondent for their physical needs, and additionally the Respondent also has to take care of his mentally challenged aunt who is staying with them. Learned counsel would submit that though the Respondent is employed with Accenture but Accenture has no policy of work from home and the company is also in the process of laying off people. He would submit that if three times in a month the Respondent has to take leave to travel to Pune, then the company may lay off the Respondent thereby taking away his source of livelihood. Learned counsel also submits that the salary earned by the Applicant is much more than that earned by the Respondent. He submits that the salary earned by the Applicant is over Rs.93,000/- per month, whereas Respondent earns Rs.80,000/- per month. Therefore, it would not only be more inconvenient for the husband to travel to Pune if the proceedings are transferred to Pune but also cause greater hardship. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the Application be rejected.

11. I have heard the learned counsel and also given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. has emphasized that while considering transfer under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), it is the wife’s 1 SCC Online SC 1199 (2022) Priya R. Soparkar 5 of 9 convenience that has to be looked at. In Paragraph No.9 of the said decision, it was observed as under:

13. In the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi,[2] the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has while considering the comparative inconvenience of the husband and wife observed that it is the convenience of the wife that has to be given preference over the convenience of the husband. Paragraphs No. 3 and 4 are usefully quoted as under:-