ANU W/O. CHINMAY LIMBACHIYA AND D/O. RAMESHBHAI NAI vs CHINMAY JAYANTBHAI LIMBACHIYA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/MCA/802/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240240522026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 802 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANU W/O. CHINMAY LIMBACHIYA AND D/O. RAMESHBHAI NAI
Versus
CHINMAY JAYANTBHAI LIMBACHIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PINAKIN B RAVAL(3468) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 16/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Pinakin B. Raval, learned advocate for the
applicant and Mr. P. V. Patadiya, learned advocate for the
opponent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Patadiya, learned
advocate, waives service of rule for and on behalf of the
opponent.
3. This application is filed under Section 24 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking transfer
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:50:50 IST 2026
C/MCA/802/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240240522026)
of Family Suit No. 181 of 2025 pending before the Family
Court at Bhuj – Kachchh to the concerned Court at Patan.
4. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the applicant, would
submit that the applicant happens to be wife of the
opponent who instituted a family suit against the
applicant at Family Court, Bhuj – Kachchh, whereas the
applicant along with her minor child aged about three
years is residing at Patan. It is submitted that the
distance between Patan to Bhuj – Kachchh is around
310kms one way and would cause great hardship and
inconvenience to the applicant to attend the suit
proceeding instituted by the opponent.
4.1. It is further submitted that to attend the proceeding
by the applicant, she has to travel from Patan to Bhuj –
Kachchh and to come back to her residence, it takes
around two days and in such travelling, she is required to
incur expenses apart from looking after the minor child,
for which an application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as “ the Act,
1955 ) is filed in the suit proceeding.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:50:50 IST 2026
C/MCA/802/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240240522026)
4.2. Mr. Raval, learned advocate, would submit that
considering the inconvenience of the applicant and as per
the settled position of law, the relief prayed in this
application may be considered by this Court.
4.3. Making the above submissions, Mr. Raval, learned
advocate, would request this Court to allow this
application.
5. Per contra, Mr. Patadiya, learned advocate for the
opponent, has vehemently opposed this application and
placed reliance upon the averments made in the affidavit-
in-reply submitted in this application. It is submitted
since the applicant has already submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Family Court by filing an application
under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, seeking maintenance
for herself and her minor child, this Court may not
exercise its discretionary power in favour of the
applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is a qualified
teacher and can very well attend the suit proceeding
through video conference and there is no need that on
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:50:50 IST 2026
C/MCA/802/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240240522026)
every occasion she is required to attend the suit
proceeding.
5.1. Making the above submissions, Mr. Patadiya, learned
advocate, would request this Court to reject this
application.
6. Having heard learned Counsels for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and other
documents annexed thereby, prima facie , it appears that
the applicant is residing with her minor child at Patan,
whereas the opponent has instituted a family suit at
Family Court, Bhuj which is around 310 kms away from
Patan. It is an undisputed fact that to attend the
proceeding by the applicant she has to travel almost
620kms to and fro and for which, she has to stay back at
Bhuj at night. At the same time, the opponent appears to
be working professional, and as per affidavit submitted by
the opponent along with his suit, it appears that he is
working as an interior designer and drawing a monthly
salary of Rs. 26,000/-, whereas the applicant herein
appears to be working as a primary teacher.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:50:50 IST 2026
C/MCA/802/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240240522026)
7. It is true that the applicant has filed an application
under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeking maintenance
for herself and minor child. That too, having not disentitle
her request to this Court to transfer the proceeding,
inasmuch as in the maintenance application also, she has
expressed the inconvenience and hardship caused to her
to attend the proceedings instituted by the opponent at
Family Court, Bhuj.
8. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
(i) Smita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay - AIR 2002 SC
396, (ii) N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana
Karthik Sha - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 : 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 627 and (iii) Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev
Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479.
9. In the backdrop as aforesaid, present application
succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The Family Suit No.
181 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Bhuj –
Kachchh is directed to be transferred to the concerned
Court at Patan.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:50:50 IST 2026
C/MCA/802/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240240522026)
10. After the transfer of the above proceedings, it is
requested to concerned Family Court at Patan to see that
transferred family suit filed by opponent and the
maintenance proceedings filed by applicant which is
pending before it shall be heard by the same Court. It will
be open for the opponent to request the concerned Court
at Patan to give common date in the proceedings. If such
a request will be made, the same may be considered
sympathetically by the concerned Court.
11. It is also open for the opponent to request the
concerned Court to join the proceedings through video
conferencing/online mode and if such a request will be
made by the opponent, the Court concerned may also
consider the same unless the physical presence of the
opponent is required to attend the proceedings at a
particular stage of proceedings.
12. In view of the above, the present application is
allowed in terms of paragraph-13(ii). Rule is made
absolute, accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SHAHANAZ
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by SYED SHAHANAZ(HC02353) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:50:50 IST 2026