Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Matrimonial Disputes, Rules Bombay High Court: ‘Socio-Economic Realities Demand It

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has allowed the transfer of a matrimonial case from the Family Court in Bandra, Mumbai, to the Family Court in Pune. Justice Milind N. Jadhav delivered the judgment, underscoring the importance of the wife’s convenience and the prevailing socio-economic realities that often necessitate such transfers in matrimonial disputes.

The case involves Mrs. Minaxi Rohit Biradar, who sought the transfer of a divorce petition filed by her husband, Mr. Rohit Bhimashankar Biradar, from Mumbai to Pune. The applicant, Mrs. Minaxi, has recently been transferred to Pune by her employer and argued that attending court proceedings in Mumbai would be inconvenient, especially since she has no permanent place to stay in Mumbai.

Wife’s Convenience in Matrimonial Matters: The court emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, particularly those involving transfers, the wife’s convenience is of paramount importance. Justice Jadhav referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, which stated that the convenience of the wife generally holds more weight in such cases due to the socio-economic dynamics prevalent in Indian society.

Justice Jadhav noted, “Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” The court also took into account that Mrs. Minaxi, residing alone in Pune, would face significant hardship if required to attend proceedings in Mumbai, where she lacks accommodation.

Rejection of Husband’s Objections: Mr. Rohit Bhimashankar Biradar, the respondent, opposed the transfer, arguing that the petition was filed by the wife merely to frustrate the ongoing divorce proceedings. His counsel further contended that the transfer was unnecessary since Mrs. Minaxi frequently travels to Mumbai for work.

However, the court dismissed these objections, stating that the husband’s arguments lacked merit. The court observed that the letter from Mrs. Minaxi’s employer confirming her transfer to Pune was sufficient to justify her request for a transfer of the case.

Justice Jadhav highlighted that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides the court with the discretion to transfer cases to ensure justice is served, particularly in matrimonial matters. The judgment underlined that while the Supreme Court has noted a trend of wives seeking transfers in matrimonial disputes, each case must be evaluated on its own facts. The court found that the specific circumstances of this case warranted the transfer to Pune.

Quotes from the Judgment: “The power under Section 24 of the CPC is to be employed to meet the ends of justice, especially in matrimonial matters where the wife’s convenience must be given due consideration,” remarked Justice Jadhav.

This judgment reaffirms the Bombay High Court’s stance on prioritizing the wife’s convenience in matrimonial cases, especially in the context of transfer petitions. By granting the transfer, the court has once again emphasized the need to adapt judicial processes to the practical realities faced by women in such disputes. The ruling is likely to influence future cases, reinforcing the legal framework that supports the fair and considerate treatment of women in matrimonial litigation.

Date of Decision: August 30, 2024

Mrs. Minaxi Rohit Biradar alias Minaxi Sadashiv Muchandi vs. Mr. Rohit Bhimashankar Biradar