mca10.21

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

933 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2021

NEHA RANJIT PAWAR ALIAS NEHA DILIP PATIL

VERSUS

RANJIT WALMIK PAWAR

.....

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Amol Sawant

…..

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 20^th JANUARY, 2021

PER COURT:-

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-wife and the

respondent-husband.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submits that the

applicant-wife at present is residing with her parents at Jalgaon. The

respondent-husband has filed a petition No. A-107 of 2020 before

the Family Court, Dhule for decree of divorce. Learned counsel

submits that there is distance of 100 kilometers between Jalgaon and

Dhule. The applicant-wife is having three years old son suffering from

blood cancer. It is thus difficult for the applicant-wife to travel such a

distance alongwith the said ailing son to attend the court dates at

Dhule.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that the

respondent-husband is ready to bear the travelling expenses of the

mca10.21

-2-

applicant-wife.

4.

In the following cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various

High Courts, including this Court, have reiterated that in the

matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is to be

considered:-

i)

Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, reported in AIR

2002 SC 396;

ii)

Mahadevi Gopal Mehetre vs. Gopal Prabhakar Mehetre,

reported in 2015 (5) AIR Bom R 250;

iii)

Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel, reported in AIR 2000

SC 3512(1);

iv)

Ravinder Kaur vs. Hitinder Singh, reported in AIR 2000 SC

3403(2);

v)

Renu Gautam vs. Vinod Gautam, reported in AIR 2000 SC

3405 (1);

vi)

Anjali Ashok Sadhwani vs. Ashok Kishichand Sadhwani,

reported in AIR 2009 SC 1374;

vii)

Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap,

reported in AIR 2016 SC 3584;

viii)

Reena Mehra vs. Rohit Rai Mehra and another, reported in AIR

2003 SC 1002;

mca10.21

-3-

ix)

Rakhi Banerjee vs. Subhankar Mukherjee, reported in AIR

2009 SC 928;

x)

T. Gayatri Devi (Smt) vs. Tallepaneni Sreekanth (Dr.), reported

in 2013 (5) All.M.R. 918;

xi)

Anita Balkrishna Barge vs. Balkrishna Sopan Barge, reported

in 2010 (6) All M.R. 685;

xii)

Smita Dhananjay Patil vs. Dhananjay Krishnakumar Patil,

reported in 2014 (1) AIR Bom R. 450;

xiii)

Kalpana Pankaj Rozatkar vs. Pankaj Supadu Rozatkar,

reported in 2013 (5) AIR Bom R 51;

xiv)

Sayali Swapnil Kuber vs. Swapnil Harischandra Kuber,

reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 584;

5.

In view of the above, even if the respondent-husband has

shown his ready and willingness to bear the travelling expenses,

however, it is difficult for the applicant-wife to travel the distance of

100 kilometers to attend the court dates alongwith her three years old

son suffering from blood cancer.

6.

Thus, in view of the above and in terms of the ratio laid down in

the aforesaid cases, I am inclined to allow this misc. civil application.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

mca10.21

-4-

O R D E R

I.

Miscellaneous Civil application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause “B”.

II.

Miscellaneous Civil application is disposed of accordingly.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/