MAHARASHTRA: <\/em>The Bombay High Court<\/a><\/strong>, Aurangabad Bench, through Justice Abhay J. Mantri<\/strong>, has refused to transfer a divorce case filed by a husband from Mehkar to Nanded, holding that the wife failed to show any real difficulty<\/strong> that would justify shifting the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife approached the High Court seeking transfer of her husband’s pending divorce proceedings from the Mehkar Court to the Family Court at Nanded<\/strong>. She argued that travelling nearly 200 kilometres<\/strong> from Nanded to Mehkar for court hearings was causing inconvenience and requested that the matter be transferred to Nanded, where other related proceedings between the parties were already pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that both the husband and wife are employees of the Indian Postal Department<\/strong>. The wife is posted at Nanded while the husband is working in Mumbai. The husband’s native place is in Mehkar Taluka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the record, the husband filed the divorce petition before the Mehkar Court on January 20, 2026. After the filing of the divorce case, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/strong> and also filed a complaint under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/strong> before the court at Nanded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife argued that the husband had deliberately filed the divorce case at Mehkar, around 200 kilometres away from Nanded, only to harass her and make it difficult for her to attend court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband opposed the transfer application. He argued that the wife had not approached the Court with complete facts and had suppressed important information. At the same time, he informed the Court that he was willing to bear her travel and related expenses<\/strong> whenever she attended the proceedings at Mehkar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that although transfer applications in matrimonial disputes are often allowed, the facts of the present case were different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the wife is a salaried government employee<\/strong> with an independent source of income. It also observed that she had not filed any proceedings against the husband until after he instituted the divorce case<\/strong>. The Court found it relevant that the proceedings at Nanded were started only after the husband filed for divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Mantri further observed that the parties had lived together at Deulgaon Mahi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mehkar Court. Therefore, the Mehkar Court was legally competent to hear<\/strong> and decide the divorce petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that no child was born from the marriage<\/strong>. Since the case was a civil proceeding, the wife could request permission to participate through video conferencing. Because of this facility, her physical presence would not be required on every hearing date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also considered the husband’s willingness to reimburse travel expenses<\/strong>. It directed that if the wife attends the proceedings physically and produces her bus or train tickets, the husband shall pay the ticket charges along with Rs. 500 towards miscellaneous expenses<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining all the facts, the Court concluded that the wife would not suffer any genuine hardship by attending the proceedings at Mehkar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The Applicant can attend the proceeding online by making a necessary application.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It cannot be said that the Applicant would suffer any hardship to attend the Court at Mehkar.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finding no merit in the transfer request<\/strong>, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application<\/strong> and allowed the divorce proceedings to continue before the Mehkar Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> Relevance in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a>, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Domestic violence remedies<\/td> Wife filed DV proceedings at Nanded.<\/td><\/tr> Section 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a>, 2023<\/strong><\/td> Cruelty by husband\/relatives<\/td> Wife filed a criminal complaint at Nanded.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Governs divorce disputes<\/td> Husband’s divorce case was filed under matrimonial law.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Territorial jurisdiction<\/td> Mehkar Court was held competent to hear the case.<\/td><\/tr> Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/strong><\/td> Transfer of cases<\/td> Basis for seeking transfer from Mehkar to Nanded.<\/td><\/tr> Article 227, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> High Court supervision<\/td> High Court examined the transfer request.<\/td><\/tr> Video Conferencing Rules<\/strong><\/td> Online court appearances<\/td> Court said the wife could attend hearings virtually.<\/td><\/tr> Transfer Principles in Matrimonial Cases<\/strong><\/td> Assess hardship and convenience<\/td> Court found no genuine hardship warranting transfer.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n