Bsb v. Mrs.Sadhana Balu Virkar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Nov 2009
- Bench
- NISHITA MHATRE
Outcome
Allowed
Hence, the miscellaneous civil application is allowed in
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 13(1)(ia)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Hence, the miscellaneous civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). ..... 4
Judgment
Mr.Balu Dada Virkar ... Respondent Mr.R.V.Bansode for the applicant. None present for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:
The present civil application has been filed for a transfer of the M.J.Petition No.371 of 2008 filed by the respondent before the 3rd Assistant Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Thane, to the file of Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Satara.
The petitioner and respondent were married on
23.12.1996 in Virkarwadi, Tal. Man, Dist. Satara. It appears that they have a son who was born on 13.8.2001. He is in the 2 custody of the petitioner at present. He is being educated in the Zilla Parishad School at Virkarwadi, Tal. Man, Dist. Satara and is now in Class II.
It appears that differences have arisen between the parties and, therefore, the respondent preferred M.J.Petition No.371 of 2008 before the Assistant Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Thane, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner.
The petitioner contends that, due to her financial condition and the responsibilities cast on her, it is difficult for her to travel to Thane for attending the Court for hearing of the petition. She has further stated that she would have to travel a distance of 350 kms. from Man to Thane to attend the Court with her minor son. She has therefore preferred this application for transfer of the case to the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Satara.
The respondent though served is not present in Court.
In my opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for a transfer of the petition. Travelling 350 kms. for each date of hearing along with her son would certainly cause great hardship, not only to the petitioner but also to her son. 3 Besides this would mean that the child would miss school.
Operative part
Hence, the miscellaneous civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). ..... 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the miscellaneous civil application is allowed in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(1)(ia).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 Nov 2009. The bench was NISHITA MHATRE.
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.