IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in transfer applications, the convenience and hardship of the applicant, particularly in marriage disputes, must be prioritized.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajgaonkar, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Gawde, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Gawai, learned AGP for State.

2. At the outset, Mr. Ajgaonkar would draw my attention to prayer clause (B) of the Misc. Civil Application (MCA). He would submit that he has been appointed through Legal Aid to espouse the cause of Applicant-wife. He would submit that Applicant is residing in Kamothe near Panvel and therefore the correct jurisdictional Court for seeking transfer of Marriage Petition would be the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Panvel. He would submit that inadvertently when the MCA has been filed, in prayer clause (B) transfer is sought to the Family Court at Panvel. However, there is no Family Court at Panvel but there is Family Court at Belapur which is jurisdictionally a different Court. In that view of the matter, he seeks leave to amend the prayer clause (B) to amend the Application in that respect. Leave as prayed for is granted. Amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith in the Court itself. Re-verification stands dispensed with in that view of the matter.

3. Applicant is the wife who seeks transfer of Marriage Petition No. 71/2016 filed by Respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai, Palghar to the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel.

4. Applicant is residing in Kamote which is in Panvel. Respondent is a resident of Vasai. Apart from proximity of distance between the two destinations, it is seen that if the Applicant who is 53 years old and is required to undertake the travel from Panvel to Vasai after taking break journey even if she has to travel by train or by road, she would encounter immense hardship. This Court is aware of the fact of travelling by local train in the city of Mumbai to travel the aforesaid distance between Panvel and Vasai, as also by road. Considering the difficulty that would be encountered by the Applicant and the imprimatur of the Supreme Court where convenience of the Applicant-wife will have to be looked into by the Court while considering such an Application for transfer, the hardship of the Applicant-wife is evident. It is stated in the Petition that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 2.28 lacs due and payable to the Applicant. I am informed that in the interregnum certain cheques were paid but some of them were dishonoured. Be that as it may, it appears there is outstanding arrears. This also adds to the difficulty and hardship of the Applicant-wife. That apart medical exigency expressed by Applicant in paragraph No. 15 is also seen and considered by the Court. Further Applicant wife has filed D.V. Act proceedings which is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Panvel.

5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Gawde, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2-husband has drawn my attention to the affidavit in reply dated 14.08.2024 and would contend that all objections against allowing the MCA are stated therein. He would submit that mother of Respondent is about 80 years old and for the last several years suffering from paralysis and he is required to take care of her daily needs. He would submit that mother of Respondent is also having hearing deficiency which requires Respondent to take care of her and in the event if Marriage Petition is transferred out of Vasai, it would be difficult for Respondent to attend the matter in such a precarious condition. These are the only principal grounds of objection that can be seen from the affidavit in reply. All other grounds in the affidavit in reply are qua merits of the case between the parties relating to their marriage.

6. After hearing Mr. Ajgaonkar and Mr. Gawai, learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the clear opinion that the hardship that would be encountered by the Applicant-wife in this case would far outweigh the submissions made on behalf of Respondent. Whenever Application for transfer of the proceedings is req