\230) 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8683 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9616 of 2009)

VRUSHALI SACHIN PANDEY ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

SACHIN VIJAY DESHPANDE ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned

Single Judge of the Bombay High Court who declined the

appellant’s prayer for transfer of Petition Nos. 18, 23 and 24

of 2007 and Matrimonial Petition No.607 of 2007, all of which

are pending before Family Court, Pune.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

A perusal of the record shows that the parties were

married on 27.6.2004 at Thane, Mumbai. A girl child was born to

2

them on 13.6.2005. Both of them shifted to Pune sometime in

July, 2006. The petitioner filed aforementioned petitions for

grant of various reliefs including restitution of conjugal

rights, maintenance and return of stridhan. In January, 2008,

the petitioner’s employer shifted her to Mumbai and she started

living with her parents. She attended the proceedings in the

Family Court, Pune on eight different occasions but the

respondent is said to have remained absent. Finding it to be

extremely difficult to travel from Mumbai to Pune on each and

every date of hearing along with 3 years old daughter for the

purpose of attending the court proceedings, the petitioner filed

an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The High Court did not feel convinced with the

appellant’s plea that it would be highly inconvenient for her to

travel from Mumbai to Pune and refused to transfer the cases on

the premise that the appellant can leave her three years’ old

daughter with her parents but directed that the expenses of

traveling etc. would be borne by the husband.

In our view, the learned Single Judge should have,

keeping in view the plight of the appellant, transferred the

cases pending before Family Court, Pune to Family Court, Bandra,

Mumbai. The appellant cannot be asked to compel her aged

parents to look after her minor daughter on each and every date
3

of the court proceedings when she is required to travel from

Mumbai to Pune and we feel that it will be in the interest of

justice to transfer the above noted cases to Mumbai.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order

is set aside and the four cases noted above, which are presently

pending before Family Court, Pune are transferred to Family

Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The learned Presiding Officer, Family

Court, Pune shall transmit the records of all the cases to

Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai within four weeks of the

receipt/production of copy of this order.

....................J.
[ G.S. SINGHVI ]

....................J
[ ASOK KUMAR GANGULY ]
New Delhi,
December 17, 2009
4

ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9616/2009

(From the judgment and order dated 11/12/2008 in MCA No. 77/2008
of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

VRUSHALI SACHIN PANDEY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SACHIN VIJAY DESHPANDE Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 17/12/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul B. Dakh, Adv.

Mr. Jagdeep Dhakla, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

(S. Thapar) (Mithlesh Gupta)

P.S. to Registrar Court Master

The signed order is placed on the file.