Gujarat High Court
Neelam Sunil Sawlani D/O Narain P Ahuja vs Sunil Murlidhar Sawlani on 22 April, 2022
Author: A. C. Joshi
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/MCA/198/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 198 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NEELAM SUNIL SAWLANI D/O NARAIN P AHUJA
Versus
SUNIL MURLIDHAR SAWLANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAUSHAL H PATEL(9328) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VIJAY H PATEL(7361) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 22/04/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anshul Shah with learned advocate Mr. Jamshed kavina with learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the respondent at length.
2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel waives service of rule for the respondent.
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 22 21:41:33 IST 2022
C/MCA/198/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022 3. The present application under Section-24 of the Civil
Procedure Code,1908 (for short the Code) is filed by the applicant- wife to transfer the Hindu Marriage Petition No.2190 of 2019 pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad to the Family Court at Vadodara.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant -wife got married with the respondent - husband on 18.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Ahmedabad. That, after the marriage, the applicant -wife started living with the respondent - husband. That, the respondent - husband started harassing the applicant and also meted cruel treatment to the applicant-wife. That, in this context, the applicant had also given a complaint to the National Commission of Women on 27.05.2020. That, the applicant had been deserted by the respondent by vacating the rented premises in Mumbai where they both stayed without bringing into the notice to the applicant and the applicant is at present residing with her parents at Vadodara. That, opponent - husband has filed an application being H.M.P NO. 2190 of 2019 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad inter-alia seeking divorce.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Anshul Shah for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a house wife. It is further submitted that the distance between the Vadodara to Ahmedabad is approximately 110 Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 22 21:41:33 IST 2022 C/MCA/198/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022 KM (one side) and therefore, round trip about 220 KM, which causes hardships to the applicant-wife for attending the Court proceedings at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the respondent - husband is residing at Bombay and therefore, it is easy for him to attend the Court proceedings at Vadodara. He also submitted that the proceedings are pending before the Family Court at Ahmedabad may be transferred to the learned Family Court at Vadodara.
6. Per contra, Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the respondent has urged that in the present case, it is not true that the respondent - husband is residing at Bombay but sometime he visits Bombay. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Vaibhavi Pinkesh Solanki Vs. Pinkesh Vijaykumar Solanki reported in 2021 (3) GLR 2199, wherein, it is observed that the transfer application filed by the applicant - wife is dismissed by imposing to and fro travel expenditure to attend the court proceedings upon the respondent - husband and therefore, this application may be dismissed on the same line.
7. Having herd the arguments advanced by learned advocates of both the sides, it appears that the distance between Bombay to Baroda is lesser in compare to the distance between the Bombay and Ahmedabad. Further, the applicant is a house wife, upon such premises the judgment delivered by this Court is not helpful to the respondent - husband, since the facts and circumstances of the Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 22 21:41:33 IST 2022 C/MCA/198/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2022 present case are totally different. Moreover, in that case, the applicant-wife was working as a fashion designer and in the present case, the applicant is a house wife. Further, it would be difficult for the applicant to travel about 220 kms from Vadodara to Ahmedabad for round trip and the applicant is a house wife, which may cause hardships for the woman to attend the Court proceedings. This Court has also relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of Minesh Rajnikant Dalal v/s. Avani Minesh Dalal, reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1685 also referred to the decision made in the case of Jayshreeba Jayendrasinh Raulji Vs. Jayendrasinh ganpatsinh Raulji in MCA no. 431 of 2019. Therefore this is a fit case to exercise discretion under section 24 of CPC for transferring the matter from Ahmedabad to Vadodara. The application is allowed. The proceedings of the Hindu Marriage Petition No.2190 of 2019, pending before the learned Family Court at Ahmedabad is ordered to be transferred to the learned Family Court at Vadodara. Rule is made absolute. No orders as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(A. C. JOSHI,J) prk Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 22 21:41:33 IST 2022