The applicant-wife submitted a request to transfer the marriage petition initiated by the respondent-husband from the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division in Vasai to the Family Court in Bandra, Mumbai.

In a ruling by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, the Single Judge Bench highlighted the oversight in considering the applicant's responsibility as a single mother to care for her 15-month-old son.

The court emphasized that attending proceedings in Vasai would pose a challenge, as there would be no one to look after the child in her absence. The court ruled in favor of the applicant, recognizing her need to care for her son, who was born prematurely and suffers from ongoing health issues.

Additionally, the court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the respondent for opposing the wife's request despite her difficulties.

The applicant resided in Mahim with her parents, two brothers, and her 15-month-old son. Her father and brothers covered the expenses for both the applicant and her child. She faced significant challenges traveling from Mahim to the Vasai Court for the marriage petition proceedings, averaging eight hours of travel time.

Leaving her son at home was not an option, as she needed to bring him along due to his health conditions. The child was born prematurely and remained physically weak, requiring regular medication that imposed substantial costs.

Furthermore, the applicant's mother was unable to provide care for the child at home due to her old age and health issues, making the situation even more precarious.

The counsel for the respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant was capable of making the journey to Vasai, as she had been doing so until now. The respondent also expressed a willingness to cover any expenses incurred by the applicant for her travel to attend the proceedings.

The Court noted that the respondent had neither paid nor offered any financial assistance to alleviate the difficulties faced by the applicant. It emphasized that traveling with her son would pose even greater challenges, particularly given the overcrowding of local trains on the Western Railway corridor. Boarding and alighting from these trains at any time during the day was an extremely difficult task. Furthermore, the applicant had only two public transport options: the overcrowded MSRTC buses or auto-rickshaws, which charged exorbitant fares for the journey. The Court pointed out that the respondent operated three salons in Vasai and was earning a substantial income; however, this did not justify his insistence on merely covering the applicant’s travel costs to attend the marriage petition proceedings.

The Court highlighted that the applicant's responsibilities as a mother, including caring for her son, had not been adequately considered, raising concerns about who would look after the child in her absence while she attended court in Vasai.

The Court referenced the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, which established principles regarding matrimonial matters. It emphasized that when considering a transfer plea, courts must evaluate the economic stability of both parties, their social backgrounds, behavioral patterns, and their standards of living both before and after marriage, as well as their circumstances in making a living and the support they relied upon.

The Court acknowledged the clear inconvenience faced by the applicant and found it unacceptable to disregard her challenges, ultimately dismissing all arguments presented by the respondent.

The Court concluded that the applicant, as a single mother caring for her prematurely born son who faced ongoing health issues, deserved to have her application approved. It highlighted that the child's well-being must be the top priority for parents; however, the respondent had completely abdicated his parental responsibilities, leaving the applicant to shoulder the entire burden.

Consequently, the Court granted the application, imposing an exemplary cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the respondent, to be paid to the applicant, who had suffered for 21 months since her son’s birth and throughout the duration of the marriage petition filed by the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai, seeking a divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and/or Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.