-
by sayum
09 July 2026 8:51 AM
“Repeated Absence, Vague Allegations, and Sudden Plea for Transfer Show Clear Intent to Stall Proceedings,” In a strongly worded order Bombay High Court rejected a wife’s petition seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from the Family Court at Pune to the Civil Court at Kalamb, Osmanabad, on the ground that her application was "an abuse of process" and "a strategic attempt to delay adjudication."
Justice Kamal Khata, dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 51 of 2025, observed: “Her conduct, as reflected in the record, suggests an intention to delay the proceedings.”
While denying the transfer request, the Court allowed the applicant-wife to appear via video conferencing before the Family Court, Pune, and directed that the husband shall pay ₹5,000 for each physical appearance she may be required to make.
The petitioner-wife, Amruta Sonune, approached the High Court seeking transfer of her husband’s divorce petition filed in Pune, to a court closer to her residence in Kalamb, Osmanabad. She cited distance, financial hardship, and health issues as reasons, stating:
“Traveling over 280 km from Osmanabad to Pune is medically inadvisable due to my diabetes, hypertension, and piles.”
She claimed each visit cost her around ₹10,000, a burden she allegedly could not bear as a financially dependent housewife.
Despite making these claims, the applicant, through her counsel, also submitted that she was still willing to cohabit with her husband, raising serious doubts about her intentions.
The Court scrutinised the case record and found that the applicant had made multiple appearances in the Pune Family Court and had been represented by an advocate throughout. Her non-cooperation, Justice Khata noted, was persistent and deliberate.
“Despite repeated opportunities, she failed to cooperate with the final hearing. Her plea of financial hardship appeared to be a tactic to protract the matter.”
The Court found that:
She failed to cross-examine the respondent even after filing of his examination-in-chief.
She was absent from proceedings for nearly seven months.
She delayed filing a written statement and made no serious effort to prosecute her case.
The High Court also referred to its own order dated 18th November 2024, noting:
“It records that the Applicant has been deliberately delaying the matter for over four years.”
On the Issue of Transfer: Balance of Convenience Favoured Husband
Justice Khata held that the respondent-husband, Sachin Sonune, was in fact more inconvenienced by the prospect of transfer. He was working in a private software company, was the sole caregiver to his ailing mother, and risked job loss if compelled to travel to Kalamb.
The Court categorically stated:
“In the facts and circumstances, the inconvenience to the Respondent outweighs the inconvenience pleaded by the Applicant.”
The husband had also offered to bear ₹3,000 per hearing, later increased to ₹5,000, toward the wife's travel expenses if needed for physical appearances.
Video Conferencing — The Modern, Sensible Alternative
While denying the request to shift venue, the Court showed sensitivity to genuine hardship by providing a practical remedy:
“The Applicant is at liberty to seek permission from the Family Court, Pune to appear via video conferencing.”
Further, the Court made it clear:
“In the event that the Family Court requires her personal presence, the Respondent shall pay ₹5,000 per appearance towards the Applicant’s travel and related expenses.”
The Court also relied on Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150, emphasising that video conferencing should be encouraged to reduce unnecessary physical appearances in matrimonial cases.
The Court found that the application lacked both credibility and urgency. Justice Khata observed:
“The allegations in the Application are vague, unsupported by particulars, and at times self-contradictory.”
While the applicant claimed she faced cruelty, she simultaneously expressed a willingness to return to the matrimonial home. The Court found such assertions contradictory and noted:
“Such misuse of the process cannot be permitted.”
Relying on Abhilasha Gupta v. Harimohan Gupta (2021) 2 SCC 731, the Court reiterated that:
“Where the matter is at an advanced stage of trial, it ought not to be transferred.”
Justice Kamal Khata concluded: “This Transfer Application is a strategic attempt to delay the proceedings. The application is without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.”
However, the Court issued the following directions in the interest of expeditious disposal and fairness:
The Family Court at Pune was directed to conclude the trial within three months from the date of the order.
The applicant may request virtual appearance, which the Family Court must consider on its own merits.
If required to appear physically, the respondent must pay ₹5,000 per appearance to cover her costs.
This judgment underscores that transfer of matrimonial proceedings cannot be sought at whim or used as a delaying tactic—especially when technological alternatives exist and the trial has reached an advanced stage. The Bombay High Court’s ruling sends a clear signal against procedural abuse, while ensuring that litigants have access to meaningful alternatives like video conferencing.
“Courts cannot allow parties to manipulate the forum for adjudication under the guise of hardship,” the judgment firmly declares.
Date of Decision: 1 August 2025
