Back
MILIND N. JADHAV
Minaxi Rohit Biradar alias Minaxi Sadashiv Muchandi – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Bhimashankar Biradar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shubham, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Pradip Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent.
2. This Application was heard by me on 16th August 2024 and the following order was passed :
2. The Applicant is directed to serve a copy of the Application on the Advocate for the Respondent. The copy is given to him in my presence in the Court.
3. A grievance is expressed by the learned Advocate for the Respondent that though transfer by the Applicant is sought to Pune from the Family Court at Bandra, it is sought on the basis that the Applicant is having her job at Pune even though the Headquarter of her company is at Vikroli. I have impressed upon learned Advocate for the Applicant to place on record the details about Applicant’s job profile and working at Pune and for how long she will be stationed in Pune. This is only to ensure that it should not happen in the immediate future that after she gets re-transferred back to Mumbai, she makes another application for seeking transfer of the proceedings to Mumbai.
4. Since, this is the apprehe
The court established that in matrimonial transfer cases, the wife's convenience is a critical factor, guided by the principles of justice and socio-economic realities.
In matrimonial matters, the court prioritizes the wife's convenience and hardship when considering transfer applications under Section 24 of the CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
