Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72922 (BOM)

MRS KIRAN OMKAR GANPATYE v. MR. OMKAR GURUDUTI GANPATYE

MCA/330/2025 · 2025-11-04

Shri Shivkumar Dige

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

133-MCA-330-2025 (C).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 330 OF 2025 Mrs Kiran Omkar Ganpatye ...Applicant Versus Mr. Omkar Guruduti Ganpatye ...Respondent Mr. Mohit Dalvi a/w Mr. Ashish Loke Advocate for the Applicant Mr. Saket Mohe a/w Ms. Srushti Thorat, Mr. Manoj Sable a/w Mr. N. G. Kamble i/b Vidhi Partners for respondent CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 4th NOVEMBER, 2025. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the Respondent tendered affidavit-in-reply. It is taken on record. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking transfer of Petition A/289/2025 pending before the Family Court No. 5, Pune to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Sindhudurg-Oros. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that the applicant stays at village Gaavrai, Taluka Kudal. The applicant has lost her father. She stays with her mother. The applicant has no source of income to attend the Court dates at Pune. The applicant has to travel from her place to Kudal and therefrom to Pune. The applicant Iresh IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.11.07 10:06:08 +0530 133-MCA-330-2025 (C).DOC is finding it difficult to attend Court dates at Pune. Hence, requested to allow the application. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent, that respondent is taking care of his daughter who is 8 years old. The respondent has his own business. The respondent cannot attend Court dates at Sindhdurg-Oros by carrying his 8 years old daughter. Hence, requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both learned counsels. Respondent is attending Court proceedings at Sindhdurg filed by the applicant under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Respondent can attend Court proceedings through video conferencing and if required, he can attend personally. It is settled principle of law that convenience of wife has to be considered over the husband. 6. Considering these facts, I pass following order: O R D E R I. The application is allowed. II. Petition A/289/2025 pending before the Family Court No. 5, Pune be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Sindhudurg- Oros. Page 2 of 3 Iresh 133-MCA-330-2025 (C).DOC III. Respondent can file application before Civil Judge Senior Division, Sindhudurg-Oros for appearance through video conferencing. IV. The learned Trial Court shall decide the said application. 7. The application is allowed and disposed off in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) Iresh