Appeal dismissed — ruling against Mrs. Swara Sushil Khedekar (Applicant)
In Short
A working wife living in Thane asked the High Court to move her husband's divorce case from Khed to Thane so it would be easier for her to attend. The husband opposed the move because he lives in Khed, runs a small business, and is the sole caregiver for their six-year-old son. The court dismissed the wife's request, noting that the balance of convenience favoured the husband and child, though the court noted she could ask to attend hearings via video link.
The Parties
Party A: Mrs. Swara Sushil Khedekar (nee Ms. Shruti Shashikant Dalvi)
Party B: Mr. Shushil Satish Khedekar
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. Shantanu Gurav, along with Learned Advocate Mr. Shubham Vasekar, instructed by Adv. Madhur Salkar
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Someshwar M. Wale, along with Learned Advocate Ms. Pooja S. Wale
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
What the Case Was About
A husband filed a divorce petition in a court at Khed in Ratnagiri district. His wife, who works as an Assistant Manager at a bank and lives in Thane with her parents, wanted the divorce case transferred to Thane. She argued that traveling 200 to 250 kilometres from Khed to Thane was hard for her. The husband objected, pointing out that he takes care of their six-year-old son alone in Khed, runs his business there, and that the wife had not even asked for visitation rights or visited the child. He argued that moving the case would make it very hard for him to look after his young son.
Judgment Date
1st October, 2026
The Outcome
The court dismissed the wife's transfer application and ruled that the divorce case must continue in the court at Khed where the husband filed it.
What the Court Looked At
- The court noted that the wife is employed as an Assistant Manager at a bank in Thane and earns a substantial salary.
- The court observed that the husband lives and works in District Ratnagiri and is the sole caregiver for their six-year-old son.
- The court considered that the husband has to look after the child's schooling, daily needs, and extracurricular activities in Ratnagiri.
- The court accepted the husband's point that transferring the case to Thane would cause much greater hardship to him and his minor son than it would to the wife.
- The court noted that the wife had not visited the child, asked about his well-being, or sought parenting time.
- The court acknowledged Supreme Court rulings stating that the usual rule favouring the wife's convenience is not absolute and should not be treated as an inflexible law when facts show otherwise.
"If the facts of a particular case demonstrate that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the husband and that the proceedings ought to continue in the chosen forum, Courts must exercise caution and refrain from interfering."
What This Means For You
Just because a court often tries to help wives with travel convenience in family disputes does not mean a transfer request is guaranteed to succeed. In this case, the husband's undeniable duty as the sole caregiver for a young child, combined with the fact that the wife had not sought visitation or contact with the child, swung the balance against her. If you are seeking to transfer a family law case to a different city, you must show true hardship while also addressing practical family realities, such as childcare responsibilities. Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate next steps when you are facing a difficult court transfer battle.
You Still Have Options
Dealing with court transfers, custody issues, and contested divorce petitions can feel overwhelming, especially when you are worried about travel and logistics. It is not the end of the road, and you can still explore second opinions, alternative ways to appear in court like video conferencing, or practical guidance on your next steps. Reach out to Setback Solutions for help understanding your options and coordinating the right path forward, keeping in mind that Setback Solutions provides plain-language coordination and support only, and is not a law firm or a provider of legal advice.