Page 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   6159-6160   OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 15558-15559 of 2014)

VAISHALI SHRIDHAR JAGTAP   ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

SHRIDHAR VISHWANATH JAGTAP           ... RESPONDENT (S)

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

KURIAN, J.:

  Leave granted.  

2. The  appellant  is  the  wife  of  the  respondent.  She  is

aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer

the  case,  filed  in  Mumbai  by  the  respondent  for  divorce,  to

Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review

Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view

that  the  appellant  does  not  have  to  travel  on  all  days  for

defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be

paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred.

3. According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is

difficult  for  her  mother  to  accompany  the  appellant  for  her

1

NON-REPORTABLE

Page 2

travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal

cases - one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention

of  Domestic  Violence Act,  2005 and the  third  under  Section

498A  of  The  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  and  other  related

provisions,  pending  at  Barshi,  and  one  on  the  civil  side  for

restitution.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has

vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted

that the appellant’s mother is only 60 years old and that she

has two brothers.  It  is  also  pointed out  that  majority  of  the

witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to

travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the

respondent-husband.  

5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is

around  400  kilometres.  Four  cases  between  the  parties  are

pending  at  Barshi.  Apparently,  the  comparative  hardship  is

more  to  the  appellant-wife.  This  aspect  of  the  matter,

unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.  

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside

and  the  M.  J.Petition  No.  2287  of  2013  filed  by  the

2

Page 3

respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand

transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above.  There shall  be no

orders as to costs.  

..................................J.         (KURIAN JOSEPH)

......………………………………J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi; July 8, 2016.   

3