In matrimonial disputes, courts must prioritize the well-being of children and consider the socio-economic context when deciding on transfer applications.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Ms. Contractor, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Respondent.

2. This Miscellaneous Civil Application (for short “MCA”) is filed by Applicant – wife seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No.11 of 2024 filed by Respondent – husband in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

3. Applicant - wife is a resident of Mahim where she is residing with her retired father, homemaker mother and two unmarried brothers alongwith her minor daughter. The daughter is 15 months old and she is required to provide care and support for him. Presently, the expenses of the Applicant - wife and her infant / minor daughter are borne by her father and brothers.

4. Ms. Contractor, learned Advocate for the Applicant - wife has taken me through the averments and pleadings made in the MCA and would contend that Applicant - wife is facing severe difficulty to travel from Mahim to attend the Marriage Petition proceedings in Vasai Court she spends 8 hours on an average for the traversing the distance. She would submit that it is impossible for the Applicant- wife to leave her infant / minor daughter at home and she is required to carry him alongwith her. She would submit that the said infant / minor daughter of the Applicant- wife was born prematurely, he is still bodily weak and requires regular and constant medication including substantial costs. In support of this submission, she has drawn my attention to the medical papers appended at Exhibit “C” collectively from page Nos.54 to 71 and after perusing the same, the case of Applicant- wife put forward by her Advocate cannot be disbelieved.

4.1. She would submit that Applicant’s mother is old and does not keep good health, resultantly she is not in a position to provide care and support to Applicant’s minor daughter, if he is left behind. In this regard, the medical papers of Applicant’s mother have also been appended at Exhibit “D” collectively from page Nos.72 to 85. She would submit that for the Applicant, travelling all the way to Vasai Court is extremely difficult and traumatic.

4.2. She would submit that Applicant - wife has filed FIR under Section 498-A readwith other offences of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Respondent - husband and his family members, inter alia, seeking return of her streedhan and articles, which is pending trial. She would submit that Respondent – husband and his family members have obtained anticipatory bail in that case.

4.3. Finally, she would submit that being completely helpless, Applicant- wife filed Petition No.E-324 of 2022 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai inter alia, seeking maintenance as she has severe financial constraints to provide for herself and her infant / minor daughter. Hence, she would submit that this Court be pleased to allow the present MCA in the interest of justice.

5. PER CONTRA, Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Respondent – husband would vehemently oppose the present MCA on the ground that Applicant- wife can very well undertake the journey to Vasai which she has been attending till now and if so required, Respondent - husband would be ready and willing to bear the expenses that would be incurred by her to undertake and traverse the said distance. In the course of his reply, this Court has found that submissions advanced by Mr. Tripathi are utterly insensitive and inhumane qua the facts in the present case.

5.1. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha Vs. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha & Ors.,AIR 1997 SC 1036 and would contend that in that case the Supreme Court had rejected a similar plea of the Applicant therein seeking transfer of Succession Application when the other party had agreed to bear expenditure of travel and stay of the Applicant whenever she attended the Court. He would submit that in the present case, Respondent – husband is agreeable to bear the travel costs of th