22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2026 WITH MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 13260 OF 2026 Megha Sandeep Kanjoje alias ..Applicant Megha Sudhakar Mane Versus Sandeep Pyarelal Kanoje ..Respondent Mr. Prasanna K. Shahane a/w. Mr. Dattatraya Devkar, Advocates, for the Applicant in both matters Mr. Harshal P. Nahata, Advocate, for the Respondent in both matters CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 6 AUGUST, 2026 P. C. 1. By Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 146 of 2026, the Applicant, who is the wife of the Respondent – husband is seeking transfer of her own divorce proceeding filed before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court, Pune and in M.C.A.(St.) No. 13260 of 2026, the Applicant, who is the wife of the Respondent – husband is seeking transfer of her own D. V. proceeding filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai to the Family Court, Pune. 2. It is the case of the Applicant that she has now shifted to Pune Anand 1 of 5 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.08.08 15:39:01 +0530 22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc along with her six years old daughter who is admitted in School at Pune. There was an Order passed for an interim maintenance in the D. V. proceeding directing the Respondent – husband to pay Rs.40,000/- per month to the Applicant and to her daughter. As of today, there are arrears of Rs.11,00,000/-. In fact, there was settlement between the parties before the Magistrate’s Court in the D. V. proceeding and the Respondent – husband was supposed to pay Rs.50,00,000/- to the Applicant – wife. However, the Respondent – husband did not pay Rs.50,00,000/- to the Applicant – wife. 3. Mr. Nahata, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he needs further time to take instructions from his client. 4. On 31 July, 2026, when this matter was called out, Mr. Nahata, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 had sought time and it was recorded that Mr. Nahata undertakes to file Vakalatnama and take instructions from his client before the next date of hearing. However, even today, Mr. Nahata seeks further time. Hence, I am not convinced with the request made by Mr. Nahata. Hence, request made by Mr. Nahata, learned Counsel for the Respondent stands rejected. 5. Both the transfer Applications has been filed by the Applicant, who is the wife of the Respondent seeking transfer of her own divorce proceeding and D. V. proceeding on the ground that now, she has Anand 2 of 5 22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc shifted to Pune and her daughter is also studying in School at Pune. The Respondent is working at Hyderabad in Telangana State. According to me, it will not make any difference to the Respondent, if the proceedings are transferred from Mumbai to Pune. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S. Sarvana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 has held that while deciding transfer proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. Paragraph 9 of the said Judgment reads as under :- “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Considering the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya (supra) and facts of the present case, where the Applicant has shifted to Pune and her daughter is also studying in a Anand 3 of 5 22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc School at Pune, according to me, a case is made out to allow the Miscellaneous Civil Applications. 8. The Miscellaneous Civil Application No.146 of 2026 & the Miscellaneous Civil Application (St.) No.13260 of 2026 stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 8.1 The proceeding, being the Marriage Petition (A) No. 547 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai be transferred to the Family Court, Pune within a period of four weeks from today. 8.2 The proceeding, being the C.C.No. 383/DV/323 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai be transferred to the Family Court, Pune within a period of four weeks from today. 8.3 Both the proceedings be clubbed together and be heard by one and the same Judge of the Family Court, Pune. 9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant is hereby permitted to convey the Order passed today to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. 10. The Registrar (Judicial–I) is hereby directed to communicate the Order passed today to the Registrar of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai by Email. Anand 4 of 5 22 & 23. MCA 146-2026 (common order).doc 11. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Order. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) Anand 5 of 5