VAISHALI SHRIDHAR JAGTAP Vs SHRIDHAR VISHWANATH JAGTAP
Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-006159-006160 / 2016
Diary number: 17772 / 2014
Advocates: ABHA R. SHARMA Vs
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