Bombay High Court
Vrushali Gokul Salunke vs Gokul Suryabhan Salunke on 10 December, 2018
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
MCA/103/2018
1 of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2018
VRUSHALI GOKUL SALUNKE
VERSUS
GOKUL SURYABHAN SALUNKE
...
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Nandedkar Devanand Y.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Palsikar Vikrant S.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: December 10, 2018 ...
PER COURT :-
1. The applicant / wife submits that after her marriage on 22.5.2010, a male child was born in 2011. It is alleged that the respondent / husband started suspecting her character and started abusing her, beating her and finally was driven out of the marital home on 9.9.2015.
2. PWDVA Petition No. 1319 of 2017 has been filed at Nasik and the husband attends the said proceedings. She has to travel along with an adult member of the family to Aurangabad for attending HMP No.375 of 2017 filed by the husband. It causes her serious hardships and it requires two overnight journeys to attend the proceedings at Aurangabad and to return back to Nasik. She is taking care of the child and providing for his clothing, schooling, tuitions and medical assistance, whenever required.
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 04:47:27 :::
MCA/103/2018 2 of 3
3. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:-
(i) Vennangot Anuradha Samir Vs. Vennangot Mohandas Samir-
2016 (1) Bom.C.R.250,
(ii) Soma Choudhuri Vs. Gourab Choudhuri (2004) 13 SCC 462,
(iii) Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374,
(iv) Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap -
2016 AIR (SC) 3584,
(v) Sayali Swapnil Kuber Vs. Swapnil Harischandra Kuber-
[2014(1) Mh.L.J. 584],
(vi) Nilima Vs. Pavansingh - LEX (BOM)2011 9 193 and
(vii) Shila Nitin Rajure Vs. Nitin Marotiappa Rajure -
MCA No.184 of 2017 (Aurangabad Bench), dated 9.1.2018.
4. The learned Advocate for the respondent has strenuously opposed the application. He submits that he has moved the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and desires that the applicant should come back to her marital home. Learned Advocate for the wife submits that if the husband would have treated her as is expected by a wife from a husband, she had no reason to leave the marital home after spending about 5-6 years with him. If the abuses and harassment is stopped and the applicant is treated in a manner befitting a wife, she would consider saving the marriage. She is tired of the physical and mental harassment and all that she has undergone earlier.
5. Considering the above and in view of the law applicable, I find ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 04:47:27 ::: MCA/103/2018 3 of 3 that the proceedings at issue could be transferred to Nasik since the respondent already attends the proceedings initiated by the wife at Nasik. Consequentially, the Civil Misc. Application No. 400 of 2017, filed by the husband, would also stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Nasik. These matters can be posted on the same date so that he can participate in the hearings in common visits. He is at liberty to request the concerned Court, to post the three matters on the same dates.
6. In view of the above, this application is allowed. HMP No.375 of 2017 stands transferred to the Court of Civil Judge S.D., Nasik. CMA No.400 of 2017 stands transferred to the District Court, Nasik. The litigating parties would appear before the Courts at Nasik on 24.12.2018, since the other proceedings are also posted on the same date at Nasik. Formal notices need not be issued.
7. The concerned Court at Nasik would refer the HMP proceedings to a trained Mediator in order to explore the possibility of saving the marriage. The litigating sides would make an effort in this direction.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...
akl/d ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 04:47:27 :::