Man ready to bear wife's travel cost for divorce case

Jan 21, 2012, 06:37 IST | Samarth Moray

Hearing that, HC rejects woman's plea for transfer of case from Bandra to Kalyan

The Bombay High Court has rejected a woman's request for transfer of her divorce case from the Bandra Family Court to Kalyan after learning her Andheri-based husband was willing to bear the cost of the commute.

The miscellaneous civil application for transfer was made by Pranavi Patil, a resident of Kalyan. Her husband Saurav, an engineer by training, had filed a divorce petition in the Bandra Family Court on November 25.

Transfer applications are usually submitted by people who live in a different city or district from where the proceedings are taking place, and courts generally rule in favour of wives if they are being inconvenienced.

Passing the order on Pranavi's plea on Tuesday, Justice R Y Ganoo said that Kalyan was not all that far from the city.

He took note of the fact that the husband was willing to bear the cost of the round trip a first-class train ticket from Kalyan to Kurla station and Rs 80 for the rickshaw fare. According to Pranavi's application, she married Saurav in 2007.

The application alleges that Saurav would make her consume contraceptive pills. It accuses him of trying to force her to abort; Pranavi had to move into her parents' home to deliver and the child is now three years old.
Pranavi also alleged that the sole intention of the divorce petition was to cause her harassment.

In his reply, Saurav claimed that after he had filed for restitution of conjugal rights in 2008 in the Bandra Family Court, Pranavi was regularly attending court for over two years even though she had only recently delivered and was living with her parents in Shahpur.

He also stated that his parents were too old to travel to attend court in Kalyan if Pranavi's request for transfer was granted.

Justice Ganoo even said he would direct the Family Court to require Pranavi to be present only on such days as was necessary, and the husband was not to pay her on the days she came of her own accord.

(Names of husband and wife changed for privacy reasons)

Go to top