Bombay High Court
MCA/206/2026 of MRS. MANALI SHAILESH GHADSHI NEE MANALI CHANDRAKANT GHANEKAR Vs MR. SHAILESH DATTARAM GHADSHI on 16 October 2026
206 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2026 Mrs. Manali Shailesh Ghadsi Nee Manali Chandrakant Ghanekar … Applicant vs. Mr. Shailesh Dattaram Ghadshi … Respondent …... Mr. Siddharth R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2026
Mrs. Manali Shailesh Ghadsi
Nee Manali Chandrakant Ghanekar
… Applicant
vs.
Mr. Shailesh Dattaram Ghadshi
… Respondent
…...
Mr. Siddharth R. Khedekar, Advocate for the Applicant.
…...
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 16th OCTOBER 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. This Application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) by the wife, seeking transfer of the Marriage Petition for divorce filed by Respondent i.e. husband from the Civil Court at Ratnagiri to the Civil Court at Kalyan. As per the office remark the Respondent is served.
2. On 23rd September 2026, since none appeared for the Respondent, application was adjourned as a last chance to the Respondent to appear in the Court. However, none appears for the Respondent, though served.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is presently residing with her sister and her family. The Marriage Petition is filed by the Respondent at Ratnagiri. The Applicant is unemployed and is supported by. her parents and sister. The Respondent had threatened the Applicant of dire consequences. Hence, the Applicant is not in a position to travel alone from Dombivli to Ratnagiri. There is no one in the family to accompany her to travel up to Ratnagiri. The Applicant's father is old, and therefore, would not in a position to accompany her. Since the Applicant has no independent source of income, even due to financial constraints, the Applicant would face hardship.
4. The Respondent has neither filed any reply nor has appeared in the application to oppose the grounds raised by the Applicant.
5. I have perused the Application. The submissions made on behalf of the Applicant are supported by the particular pleadings in the Application. Considering the grounds raised in the Application, the Applicant would face inconvenience and hardship to travel from her place of residence, i.e. Dombivli to
Ratnagiri. It would be inconvenient and also hardship would be faced by the Applicant considering the financial constraints and the distance between her place of residence and the Court at Ratnagiri. The Applicant has also pleaded that considering the threats given by the Respondent, it would not be possible for her to travel alone from her place of residence to Ratnagiri. The Applicant has thus made out a case on the ground of inconvenience and hardship to transfer the Petition as prayed.
6. For the reasons stated in the Application, it is allowed in terms of prayer clause '(b), which reads as under : “b) That by an order and directions of this Hon'ble Court the Marriage Petition No. 139 of 2026 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri may kindly be transferred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan.”
7. Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in aforesaid terms. (GAURI GODSE, J.)