Ashwini Balaji Avachare v. Balaji Suresh Avachare
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence, a case is made out for passing order of transfer. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Marriage Petition shall be transfered to the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Satara.
Judgment
Mr. R. V. Bansode for the applicant. ..... ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He states that private notice has been served to the respondent in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2011. He states that affidavit of service will be filed within a period of one week from today. Though appearance of the advocate for the respondent is shown in the cause list, none appears for the respondent.
The applicant is the wife of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition for divorce in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kalyan against the applicant. The applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 mca197-09 1973, against the respondent in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Satara. The prayer in this application is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent to the Court at Satara.
The applicant is a resident of Satara and her case is that it is very difficult for her to attend the Court at Kalyan by undertaking travelling of a distance of more than 400 kilometers from Satara. There is no reply filed. In any event, the respondent is required to attend the Court at Satara for defending the application filed by the applicant.
Hence, a case is made out for passing order of transfer. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Marriage Petition shall be transfered to the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Satara.
After receipt of the records of the matter, the concerned Court shall issue notice to both the parties. JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Apr 2011. The bench was A S OKA.
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.