NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR v. Megha Shailesh Meshram
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Perusal of reply indicates that averments in respect of medical treatment of the husband are not denied. Transfer application is opposed by the non-applicant on the ground that brother of husband had threatened to eliminate her. Averments in this regard are made in the…
Judgment
Shri Pranit J. Vairagade, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Sandeep Bamnote, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 31st JULY, 2026. Husband/applicant has filed the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No. 191 of 2026 from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur to the learned Family Court at Bhandara. Transfer as sought is on medical grounds.
Documents are placed on record which support the contention that he is suffering from Vertigo (Intractable) and there is bending of spine to the extent of 30 degrees. Documents indicate that the husband is under treatment for the said ailment. SKNair 2 62-mca-366-26.odt
Perusal of reply indicates that averments in respect of medical treatment of the husband are not denied. Transfer application is opposed by the non-applicant on the ground that brother of husband had threatened to eliminate her. Averments in this regard are made in the reply and also in the divorce petition. However, averments are general and vague in nature. It is further stated that her parents are also medically not fit to accompany the non-applicant to prosecute the proceedings at Bhandara. However, having regard to the medical conditions of the husband, transfer application deserves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed.
Marriage Petition No. 191 of 2026 is ordered to be transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur to the learned Family Court at Bhandara.
It is directed that on each date when the non-applicant/wife personally attends the Court proceedings at Bhandara, applicant/husband will pay amount of Rs.2000/- towards travelling and other expenses.
In the event the non-applicant/wife makes an application for appearance through Video Conferencing, the same SKNair 3 62-mca-366-26.odt may be considered favorably and permission to appear through Video Conferencing may be granted on such dates and at such stages as is deemed appropriate by the learned Family Court at Bhandara. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] SKNair
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 31 Jul 2026. The bench was ROHIT W JOSHI, MARRIAGE MEGHA ANNAJI CHANDANBAWANE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.