A single judge of Bombay High Court transferred a Divorce case from Vasai to Mahim (about 60 KMs), due a minor child, who had to accompany his mother to Divorce Court, using Mumbai Local train, then a local bus, then a MSRTC bus and alternatively Auto-ricksaw… This is not a joke, the Judge actually wrote all these things in the Order. Nobody considered Cab bookings and Virtual hearings as alternative to transferring case. Karma!

From Para 6.1

6.1. Such is not the case herein. This is a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. The wife is having one infant / minor son to provide care and support including his medical needs. The Respondent – husband has not paid / is not paying a single farthing to redress and ameliorate the difficulty faced by the Applicant – wife. That apart, to travel from Mahim to the Vasai Court would require the Applicant – wife to undertake the arduous journey in the local train from Mahim to Vasai Road Station, thereafter alight at Vasai Road Station and go to Vasai Road bus stand to take a bus to the Vasai Court which is situated in the interior at a distance of 6.7 kms. and would have to undertake the same journey while returning back from Vasai Court to her residence at Mahim. If Applicant – wife has to travel along with her infant / minor son, it would be all the more difficult for her to travel, since boarding and alighting from the local train on the western railway corridor at any given time during the day is an extremely difficult proposition considering that trains are overcrowded at all times. While undertaking the train journey, Applicant – wife would have to take care of her infant / minor son which would add to her degree of difficulty. That apart, from Vasai Road bus station to the Court and back, there are only two modes of public transport available namely the MSRTC buses which are always overcrowded and in the alternate auto-rickshaws which ply the said distance at an exorbitant cost.

From Para 8,

8. In the present case it is seen that the Respondent – husband is having three salons in Vasai and is rather earning very well. Financially, Respondent – husband is therefore well off. Merely due to that reason, Respondent – husband cannot insist that he will bear the travel cost of the Applicant – wife to attend the proceedings in Marriage Petition in Vasai. The submission made by Mr. Tripathi is without consideration of the Applicant’s case altogether. Not once has Mr. Tripathi considered the fact that the Applicant – wife is required to support and care for her 15 month old infant / minor son and if she is to attend the proceedings in Vasai Court, how and who would take care of the child in her absence.

From Para 10,

10. In view of the above averments made in the MCA and the facts and circumstances in the present case, the ratio in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha3 as enumerated in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 has to be applied to the present case in favour of the Applicant- wife. The principles laid down therein with respect tomatrimonial matters that whenever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, Courts have to take into consideration theeconomic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to themarriage 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 in life squarely apply to thepresent case. The said principles squarely apply in favour of allowing the present MCA. As held by the Supreme Court, given the socioeconomicparadigm in the Indian society, the inconvenience caused to the wife must be looked at whenever confronted with such anapplication for transfer.

From Paras 13-15, (Not satisfied with transferring of the Divorce case, the Judge went ahead and imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh only on husband!)

13. Considering that the Respondent – husband’s Advocate has argued the present MCA for a considerable length of time without even filing his Affidavit-in-Reply despite having been served as far back as in July 2024, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi that the matter was referred to mediation in the interregnum and therefore the reply could not be filed. It is seen that Applicant – wife is a single mother requiring to take care of her infant / minor son who is born pre-term and is therefore facing constant health issues. The well-being of the son should undoubtedly be at the forefront and of paramount importance for the parents. However in the present case the entire responsibility is on the Applicant – mother and the Respondent – father has completely exonerated himself of his duty as a parent to the detriment of the mother and child. I can see no remorse or sympathy in the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi in the present case.
14. Hence, in view of the above reasons, as also the fact that the Respondent – husband has vehemently contested this Application through his Advocate without even filing any Affidavit-in-Reply whatsoever, I am inclined to levy exemplary costs on the Respondent – husband of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the Applicant – wife, who in my opinion has clearly endured suffering for the last 21 months from the date of birth of her son and further more from the date of filing of the Marriage Petition by the Respondent – husband in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and or Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In my opinion, Applicant – wife deserves the award of costs as it would go a long way in ameliorating her hardship and difficulty in the interest of justice.
15. Costs as directed shall be paid by Respondent – husband to Applicant – wife within a period of two weeks from today. If the costs are not paid, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Palghar and paid over to the Applicant – wife. A copy of the receipt / acknowledgment of payment of costs shall be placed before the Transferee Court by the Respondent – husband.

Index of Transfer Judgments is here.