In a key matrimonial litigation, the Bombay High Court dismissed a wife’s request to transfer ongoing divorce proceedings from Pune to Osmanabad. The court found her claims unconvincing and termed the application a tactical attempt to delay the case.
Case Background
The application was filed by Amruta Sonune, a 37-year-old housewife residing in Osmanabad, seeking the transfer of divorce proceedings filed by her husband, Sachin Sonune, to a court nearer to her residence.
The couple were married in April 2016 through an inter-caste love marriage. According to the wife, she had faced mental and physical cruelty, and further alleged that the husband was an alcoholic involved in an extramarital affair.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Directs Safe House and Protection for Interfaith Couple Facing Familial Opposition
The applicant's counsel argued:
- She is financially dependent on her parents.
- She suffers from diabetes, hypertension, and piles, making long travel to Pune (approx. 280 km) extremely difficult.
- Each court appearance costs around ₹10,000 including travel, making the process financially draining.
- She is still willing to reconcile with her husband.
"The wife is unable to attend court in Pune due to medical and financial hardship," her advocate submitted.
She relied on earlier judgments in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Sunita v. Baliram, where courts considered similar hardship-based transfer requests.
Read also:- High Court Imposes Fine on Lawyer for Disrespectful Conduct During Virtual Hearing
Opposing the request, the respondent’s lawyer claimed the application was only to delay the trial. He argued:
- The husband is the sole earning member of his family.
- He needs to care for his ailing mother, and traveling to Osmanabad could affect his job.
- The wife had already attended the court multiple times and had been regularly represented by counsel.
- Video conferencing was a viable option and was available at the Family Court, Pune.
He further stated:
“The balance of convenience lies with the husband. The wife's absence seems deliberate.”
The husband even offered to cover ₹5,000 per appearance if the wife had to attend in person.
Read also:- SC Cancels Bail Over Broken RS.25 Lakh Undertaking in Fraud Case
Justice Kamal Khata reserved the matter on July 25, 2025, and delivered the order on August 1, 2025. Key findings:
- The court found inconsistencies in the wife's statements — while she alleged cruelty, she also stated willingness to cohabit.
- The applicant remained absent for several hearings, despite repeated chances.
- The plea appeared to be strategic and intended to stall the case.
“The conduct of the applicant reflects an intent to delay. Such misuse of process cannot be permitted.”
The court cited Abhilasha Gupta v. Harimohan Gupta, stating that transfer of cases near trial completion is unjustified.
It also pointed to her failure to use video conferencing, which would have been a reasonable solution.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Stays Externment Orders Against Ashu Garg Passed Under Goonda Act
The court dismissed the transfer application and made the following directions:
- The wife may request the Family Court in Pune to appear via video conferencing.
- If her physical presence is required, the husband must bear ₹5,000 per appearance.
- The Family Court, Pune, was asked to dispose of the case within 3 months.
“The application is without merit and stands dismissed.” – Bombay High Court
Case Title: Amruta w/o Sachin Sonune vs. Sachin s/o Namdev Sonune
Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 51 of 2025