Working Woman Can Attend Proceedings Online, No Hardship Shown: Bombay High Court Rejects Transfer

The Bombay High Court has refused to transfer a divorce petition filed by a husband from Mehkar in Maharashtra's Buldhana district to a court in Nanded, holding that the wife, a salaried government employee, failed to demonstrate any real hardship that would justify shifting the proceedings.

Justice Abhay J. Mantri of the Aurangabad Bench dismissed the transfer application filed by the wife, who had sought transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 19 of 2025 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Mehkar to the Family Court at Nanded. The Court observed that modern technological facilities, including virtual hearings, could adequately address concerns regarding travel and attendance.

The applicant-wife was represented by Advocate A.A. Suryawanshi, while Advocate V.S. Palsikar appeared for the respondent-husband.

According to the case record, both parties are employed with the Indian Postal Department. The wife is posted at Nanded, whereas the husband works in Mumbai. The husband's native place falls within Mehkar Taluka.

The husband had instituted divorce proceedings before the Mehkar court on January 20, 2026. Subsequently, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also lodged a complaint under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 498-A, IPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nanded.

The wife argued that the divorce case had been filed in Mehkar merely to harass her, forcing her to travel nearly 200 kilometres from Nanded to attend court proceedings. She therefore sought transfer of the case to Nanded. However, the Court noted that when the transfer application was initially filed, the wife had not even disclosed the pendency of the domestic violence and criminal proceedings in Nanded. Those facts were brought on record later through an amendment during the pendency of the matter.

Opposing the plea, the husband contended that the wife had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. He further expressed willingness to bear her reasonable travel and incidental expenses whenever she was required to attend proceedings physically at Mehkar.

While acknowledging that courts often lean in favour of transferring matrimonial proceedings to the place where the wife resides, Justice Mantri clarified that each case must be assessed on its own facts. The Court found it significant that the wife was a working woman with an independent source of income. It also noted that she had initiated proceedings at Nanded only after the husband filed the divorce petition at Mehkar.

The Court further observed that the parties had cohabited at Deulgaon Mahi, a place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mehkar court. Consequently, the Mehkar court was fully competent to entertain and adjudicate the divorce proceedings. The absence of any child from the marriage was also considered relevant while assessing the alleged inconvenience.

Importantly, the Court highlighted the increasing availability of virtual hearing facilities. It observed, "the Applicant can attend the said proceeding online by requesting the concerned Court" and therefore "it is not necessary for her to physically attend the Court on every date in the Mehkar Court."

Taking note of the husband's undertaking to reimburse travel expenses and pay miscellaneous costs, the Court concluded that no substantial hardship had been established. Justice Mantri held, "the Applicant can attend the proceeding online by making a necessary application" and that "it cannot be said that the Applicant would suffer any hardship to attend the Court at Mehkar."

Finding no merit in the transfer request, the Court dismissed the application. However, it clarified that the wife would remain free to seek permission from the trial court to appear through video conferencing. The Court also directed that if she attends the proceedings physically, the husband shall reimburse her bus or train fare upon production of tickets and additionally pay Rs. 500 towards miscellaneous expenses.

Case Title: AMG v. MG

Date of Order: June 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Abhay J. Mantri