Bombay High Court Rejects Wife’s Plea: The Bombay High Court has ruled that when both husband and wife file separate divorce petitions in different courts, the second petition must be transferred to the court where the first one was filed, holding that Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act prevails over the general transfer powers under Section 24 of the CPC.
Bombay High Court Rejects Wife Plea: The Bombay High Court Rejects Wife Plea in matrimonial disputes. It held that when both spouses file petitions for divorce or judicial separation in different courts, the later petition must be transferred to the court where the earlier one was filed, as directed under Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajesh S. Patil on 10 October 2025, in two cross-applications filed by Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot (wife) and Nitesh Gajanan Patil (husband).
The wife sought to transfer her husband’s divorce petition from the Family Court at Bandra to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, where she later filed her own case. The husband, on the other hand, requested the opposite — to move the wife’s petition to the Family Court, Bandra.
Facts and Timeline
Understanding the Wife Plea in Matrimonial Disputes: A closer look at the implications and significance of the Wife Plea in family law proceedings.
The Court noted that the husband filed his divorce petition first, on 5 December 2022, at the Family Court, Bandra, while the wife filed hers nine days later, on 14 December 2022, before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. Since the husband’s case was first in time, the question was which court should hear both petitions to prevent conflicting judgments.
Justice Patil observed:
“In order to avoid conflicting judgments, it is necessary to club the petitions.”
Section 21-A: Special Law Prevails Over General CPC Power
The husband’s counsel relied on Section 21-A(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates that the later petition shall be transferred to the district court where the earlier one is pending.
Quoting directly from the Act, the Court reiterated:
“…taking into consideration the provisions of Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, when the proceedings are filed by the husband or wife under Section 10 (Judicial Separation) or for a decree of divorce under Section 13, and thereafter another proceeding is filed by the other party… to different district Courts, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the district Court in which the earlier petition was presented and both the petitions shall be heard and disposed of together by the district Court in which the earlier petition was presented.”
The Court compared Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Justice Patil emphasized that while Section 21-A uses the word “shall”, indicating a mandatory requirement, Section 24 uses the word “may”, which denotes discretion.
Therefore, Section 21-A, being part of a special law, takes precedence over the general transfer powers under Section 24 CPC.
Wife’s Argument: Convenience Should Prevail
The wife’s counsel cited the Supreme Court ruling in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), arguing that “the wife’s convenience must be considered first” in transfer petitions, and also relied on Section 24 CPC and the Bombay High Court judgment in Yogini Umesh Chivhane v. Umesh Uttamrao Chivhane (2004).
However, Justice Patil clarified that these rulings were not under Section 21-A but under different provisions like Sections 9 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 CrPC. Hence, they were not applicable in this case.
The Court specifically noted:
“…the proceedings before the Supreme Court were not under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act. The proceedings in that case arose under Sections 9 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the ratio of this decision will not be applicable to the present proceedings.”
Distance and Convenience: Mitigation Possible
The wife also pleaded inconvenience due to the 50-kilometre distance between her residence in Kalyan and the Family Court in Bandra, Mumbai.
The Court found that the inconvenience could be mitigated by allowing video-conferencing and by directing the husband to bear her travel expenses.
“The husband has agreed to bear the travelling expenses of wife for each day of hearing, the inconvenience caused to wife monetarily can be taken care of, by directing the husband to pay the said charges.”
Final Directions by the High Court
Accordingly, the Court rejected the wife’s transfer application (MCA No. 124 of 2024) and allowed the husband’s transfer plea (MCA No. 415 of 2024). The key directions were:
- The wife’s case (HMP No. 2159/2022) shall be transferred from Civil Judge, Kalyan to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai within four weeks.
- Both petitions — Husband’s HMP No. 3540/2022 and Wife’s HMP No. 2159/2022 — shall be heard together by one Judge.
- The hearing is expedited.
- The husband must pay ₹2,500 per hearing as travel expenses if the wife appears physically.
- The wife may attend via video conferencing except when directed to appear personally by the Judge.
The Court also rejected the wife’s request for continuing interim relief for four weeks.
Legal Impact
This ruling reinforces that Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 governs situations where both spouses file similar petitions in different courts. It ensures uniformity, prevents contradictory judgments, and streamlines matrimonial litigation.
The judgment clarifies that the first-filed petition holds priority, and the second must follow it, regardless of convenience arguments — unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Mentioned
| Law / Provision | Section | Key Point Explained | Court’s Interpretation / Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 21-A – Power to Transfer Petitions in Certain Cases | When both spouses file petitions for divorce or judicial separation under Sections 10 or 13 in different courts, the later petition must be transferred to the court where the earlier one was filed. | The Court held this section is mandatory, using the word “shall”. Hence, the wife’s later petition had to follow the husband’s earlier one. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 10 – Judicial Separation | Either spouse can seek legal separation without divorce. | Mentioned to clarify that petitions under this or Section 13 fall under 21-A. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 13 – Divorce | Provides grounds for divorce. | Husband’s and wife’s petitions were both filed under this section. |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Section 24 – General Power of Transfer and Withdrawal | Gives High Court or District Court discretionary power to transfer or withdraw suits/proceedings. | Distinguished as general law; uses “may” (discretionary). Does not override Section 21-A, which is special and mandatory. |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Section 25 – Transfer of Cases by Supreme Court | Allows Supreme Court to transfer cases between states. | Discussed in precedents (Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry) but held not applicable here. |
| Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | Section 125 – Maintenance of Wife, Children, Parents | Allows dependent wife/children/parents to claim maintenance. | Appears in precedents (N.C.V. Aishwarya case) but not relevant in present Section 21-A context. |
| Case Law | N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199) | Supreme Court emphasized wife’s convenience in transfer petitions. | Court said: “…the proceedings before the Supreme Court were not under Section 21-A… therefore the ratio does not apply.” |
| Case Law | Yogini Umesh Chivhane v. Umesh Uttamrao Chivhane (2004 5 Bom CR 901) | Bombay HC prioritized wife’s convenience in transfer matter. | Distinguished — that case had a one-day filing gap and maintenance claim; not relevant here. |
| Case Law | Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry (1981 2 SCC 646) | Clarified 21-A is not exhaustive; transfer powers can be used to avoid conflicting decisions. | Cited for explanation but held not controlling since facts differ. |
| Case Law | Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001 10 SCC 41) | Transfer allowed considering wife’s inconvenience (1100 km). | Held inapplicable since not under 21-A. |
| Case Law | Anisha Sanjay Hinduja v. Sanjay Shrichand Hinduja (2003 (Supp.) Bom CR 802)* | Related to petition for nullity and maintenance, not Section 21-A. | Not applied. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot v. Nitesh Gajanan Patil
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- Case Numbers: Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 124 of 2024 & No. 415 of 2024
- Coram / Bench: Hon’ble Justice Rajesh S. Patil
- Reserved On: 10 September 2025
- Pronounced On: 10 October 2025
- Applicant (in MCA 124/2024): Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot (Wife)
- Applicant (in MCA 415/2024): Nitesh Gajanan Patil (Husband)
- Advocates for Wife: Mr. Yuvraj A. Tajane (also for Respondent in MCA 415/2024)
- Advocates for Husband: Mr. Manoj Kondekar with Mr. Kiran Mohite and Ms. Deepika Mule (i/by Kiran Mohite)
- Relief Sought by Wife: Transfer husband’s divorce petition from Family Court Bandra → Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kalyan
- Relief Sought by Husband: Transfer wife’s divorce petition from Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kalyan → Family Court Bandra
- Decision: Wife’s application rejected; husband’s application allowed
- Key Direction: Wife’s HMP No. 2159/2022 to be transferred to Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, within 4 weeks
- Other Directions: Husband to pay ₹ 2,500 per hearing for wife’s travel if she appears physically; video conferencing allowed
- Result: Both petitions (HMP 2159/2022 and 3540/2022) to be heard together by one Judge
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.