IMPORTANT POINT
In matrimonial matters, the court prioritizes the wife's convenience and hardship when considering transfer applications under Section 24 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pande, learned Advocate for Applicant through VC and Ms. Palekar, learned Advocate for Respondent.

2. Present Misc. Civil Application (for short “MCA”) is filed by Applicant – wife seeking transfer of Marriage Petition being nomenclatured as A-2306 of 2022 from the Family Court Judge – 3 at Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court No.2 at Nagpur. Applicant resides in Nagpur alongwith her parents.

3. Admittedly, Respondent – husband is a resident of Chicago, Illinois State in the United States of America for the last several years. Parties got married in 2016. Maintenance proceedings are filed in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Nagpur by Applicant in the year 2019. Marriage Petition is filed by Respondent in the year 2021 in Mumbai through his father as his Constituted Power of Attorney.

4. The grounds of hardship are enumerated from paragraph No.5 onwards in the Application. I have perused the same; apart from the fact that the Applicant being financially dependent on her parents, it is averred by Applicant that Respondent has not paid a single farthing to the Applicant towards maintenance despite various orders of the Court. Apparently the orders of the Court are breached by the Respondent. Proximity of distance between the two destinations is clearly evident and cannot be denied at all. Parents of Applicant are of old age and undoubtedly due to that reason they would not be in a position to accompany the Applicant on every date of hearing to Mumbai. On perusing the grounds enumerated in the MCA, Applicant has made out a clear case for allowing the MCA. There can be no impediment whatsoever in allowing this Application.

5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Palekar, learned Advocate for the Respondent has drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 23.08.2024 and would submit that it is true that Respondent is a resident of USA and works there. She would candidly inform the Court that Marriage Petition was filed in Mumbai by his Constituted Power of Attorney i.e. his father and the father of the Respondent is prosecuting the same till date. She would submit that father of Respondent is equally old and has medical issues and hence it would be difficult for him to travel all the way to Nagpur and hence the Application filed by Applicant be rejected.

6. That apart, the said Reply states that Applicant is well educated having done her MBA and before marriage she was having a job at Pune and therefore that should be treated as one of the ground for rejecting the Application. It has come in the Reply that Applicant’s father is a retired Excise Officer and her mother is a retired Teacher and they are getting handsome amount of pension which should be considered for rejecting the Application. It is further stated that Applicant’s brother is having his business in Pune and resides there and therefore there cannot be any impediment to Applicant who is educated and financially sound to travel to Pune and thereafter travel from Pune to Mumbai to attend the proceedings on the scheduled dates.

7. On the aforesaid grounds, Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent is attempted to be justified by stating that it is the Respondent’s father who is prosecuting the Marriage Petition and he will face extreme hardship, physical exertion and harassment if the Divorce Petition is transferred out of Mumbai. I have perused the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent’s father on behalf of Respondent as his Constituted Power of Attorney. At the outset, it is stated that grounds in the Reply are made with utter insensitivity on the part of the Respondent as also equally argued with utter callousness by the arguing Advocate. It is seen that the objections and grounds enumerated in the Reply are as selfish as they can be. Respondent is living in America for the past several years. Petition is filed by his father as his PoA. There are orders passed for payment of maintenance which are flouted with disdain by Respondent, despite