914.MCA.119.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2026 Shamal Aditya Tarange ...Applicant Versus Aditya Ishwar Tarange ...Respondent *** Mr. Shailesh Sudhakar Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. P. More h/f Mr. Pathade Kedar Ashok, Advocate for the Respondent. *** CORAM: ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Applicant seeks transfer of the divorce proceedings bearing Petition No. A-116 of 2026, pending before the learned Family Court, Pune, to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rahata, or to any other Court within the territorial jurisdiction of Ahmednagar District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, at the outset, it appears that the Applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material fact that she is employed with a company at Pune and is residing at Pune. However, she has intentionally pleaded that she is residing at Rahata and works from home. In fact, the Respondent, by filing Shrikant Malani 2026:BHC-AUG:30228 914.MCA.119.2026.odt an Affidavit-in-Reply, has specifically averred in paragraph No.4 that “the Applicant is regularly residing at Pune and carrying out her employment therefrom”. The said averment has not been controverted nor denied by the Applicant by filing a Rejoinder. Thus, the non-filing of the Rejoinder leads to the inference that the Applicant is residing at Pune and carrying out her employment therefrom. On this ground alone, the Application deserves to be rejected. 4. Apart from that, during arguments, the learned counsel for the Applicant fairly submitted that it is correct that the Applicant is employed with a company at Pune. However, he submitted that she works from home and is required to attend the office twice or thrice in a week. If that being so, the Applicant is already travelling to Pune to attend her employment and, therefore, she can conveniently attend the proceedings before the learned Family Court, Pune. It cannot be said that it is difficult for her to attend the proceedings. In such circumstances, in my view, there is no necessity to transfer the proceedings from the learned Family Court, Pune, to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rahata. 5. Moreover, the Applicant contends that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are pending at Rahata. Merely because those proceedings are pending at Rahata cannot be a ground to Shrikant Malani 914.MCA.119.2026.odt transfer the present proceedings from the learned Family Court, Pune, to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rahata, particularly when the learned Family Court, Pune, is competent to try and entertain proceedings. Further, since the Applicant is admittedly required to visit Pune twice or thrice in a week for her employment, as such, no case is made out for transfer of the proceedings. 6. Consequently, the Application, being bereft of merits, stands dismissed. 7. Inform the concerned Court accordingly. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) Shrikant Malani