Balance Of Convenience In Favour Of Husband: Bombay High Court Allows Husband’s Transfer Application While Rejecting Wife's

The husband and wife had preferred separate transfer applications before the High Court, and the wife's application was dismissed.

The Single Bench of Justice Kamal Khata stated, “ I find the balance of convenience in favour of the husband. His responsibilities towards his two young children, his aged parents, and the management of his livelihood are such that directing him to contest the proceedings at Thane would cause substantial hardship. The wife, though semi-literate and financially constrained, has not demonstrated that travelling from Thane to Dhule is impossible. The only inconvenience for the wife would be the cost of travel, which stands adequately addressed by husband’s undertaking to reimburse all such expenses, including those of a companion travelling with her.”

Advocate Shantanu Deshpande represented the Applicant, while Advocate Mahendra M. Agavekar represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the husband’s case that he has to manage the upbringing of the children, the care of his aged parents, and the operation of his grocery shop, which could not be entrusted to anyone else. In these circumstances, it was submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the wife if she was required to attend Court at Dhule, particularly since the husband had undertaken to reimburse her travel and incidental expenses. The Applicant husband sought transfer of Marriage Petition filed by the Respondent-wife before the Family Court, Thane, to the Civil Judge Senior Division, District, Dhule, to be clubbed and heard along with the Hindu Marriage Petition.

It was the case of the wife that she is a non-working lady, entirely dependent on her aged and ailing parents and belongs to a family of limited means. It was therefore contended that the expenses for travelling to Dhule were unaffordable. It was urged that the wife would be compelled to travel alone for the proceedings without any family support, thereby causing not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological hardship.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the attempt at settlement through mediation had evidently failed. It was further noticed that both parties remained steadfast in their respective stands - the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the husband pressing for divorce.

The Bench also noticed that this was a peculiar case where both parties faced genuine hardships. On one hand, the husband has been running a Kirana shop, demanding his continuous personal presence, while also bearing the responsibility of caring for his two school-going children and aged parents. On the other hand, the wife, being semi-literate and financially constrained, was finding it difficult to sustain herself and was dependent on her parents.

The Bench found the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the husband as his responsibilities towards his two young children, his aged parents, and the management of his livelihood were such that directing him to contest the proceedings at Thane would cause substantial hardship. Considering that the cost of travel was adequately addressed by the husband’s undertaking to reimburse all such expenses, the Bench held, “In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that the proceedings be transferred from Thane Court to Dhule Court.”

Thus, allowing the application of the husband, the Bench rejected the application of the wife.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:37023)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Shantanu Deshpande, Aishwarya Gaikwad, Divya Pawar

Respondent: Advocate Mahendra M. Agavekar

Click here to read/download Order