SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 1033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
Smt. Irene Blanch Khera and Ors. - Applicants
Versus
Shri Glenn John Vijay Ambrose e Sousa Ticlo - Respondent
Misc. Civil Application No. 144 of 2018
Decided On : 19-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Mr. Samarth Raju Moray
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwin Bhose, Mr. Sachin Desai, Mr. Edith Dey, Mr. Ulhas Naik & Mr. Mikhail Dey

Headnote:

Civil procedure code,1908 - Section 25(1), 22, 23, 24, 25 - Civil Courts Act - Section 24 - Extension of Jurisdiction Act, 1962 - Section 3, 4, 20 and 26 - Portuguese Civil Code - Article 137, 138 and 141 - Order of temporary injunction - No exception can be made - Matrimonial Petition - It is case of Applicant No - 1 that she has to flee house of Respondent at as she faced serious threats to her safety and safety of her daughter - She had made three complaints to that effect against Respondent to local police station but of no avail as Respondent being a sitting MLA is an influential person there - Hence as Respondent has also threatened to kidnap Applicant No - 2 she has come to and reside along with Applicant No - 2 in studio apartment at - She is trying to take admission of Applicant No -2 in school at - Respondent is a wealthy businessman and politically influential person being a sitting MLA of Constituency; whereas Applicant No - 1 is a housewife and has no family support - She also apprehends serious threats to her life and also kidnapping of her daughter if she is required to travel to to contest said proceeding - Hence she has filed this Application for transfer of said proceeding from Court of Civil Judge Senior Division to Family Court at – Held, It was observed by Honble Supreme Court that even if it were to be held that it is customary law of land which would prevail over personal law of parties same could not be a bar to transfer of matter outside State of Goa to any other State - What would be of relevance is that they would be governed by their personal laws notwithstanding fact that their proceedings are conducted outside State of Hence in order to avoid inconvenience to Applicant No - 1 wife and Applicant No - 2 her minor daughter which is recognized as a ground for transfer of proceeding from one Court to another under Section 24 of C. P.C - In view of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of it becomes essential to allow this Application so that both Applicants can effectively contest said proceedings and fight out matter on merits – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT :

1. This Application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short hereinafter referred as, “C.P.C.”) for transfer of Matrimonial Petition No. 84/2018/C, filed by the Respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, North Goa to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

2. Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent, their marriage being registered as per the Civil Registration Services of Goa at Civil Registration Office, Bardez, Goa on 14/07/2006. After that they got married in the 'Church' at Goa on 24/12/2006. It was a love marriage. Out of the said wedlock, Applicant No.2 daughter is born, who is at present of the age of 10 years. Applicant No.1 and Respondent since the marriage and Applicant No.2 since her birth were residing at Goa and Applicant No.2 was studying in the school there.

3. It is the case of Applicant No.1 that she has to flee the house of the Respondent at Goa, as she faced the serious threats to her safety and the safety of her daughter. She had made three complaints to that effect against the Respondent to the local police station but of no avail, as Respondent being a sitting MLA is an influential person there. Hence, as the Respondent has also threatened to kidnap Applicant No.2, she has come to Mumbai and reside along with Applicant No.2 in the studio apartment at Bandra. She is trying to take admission of the Applicant No.2 in the school at Mumbai. However, when Respondent got knowledge of the same, he has filed Matrimonial Petition No. 84/2018/C against her, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa, Goa, in which he has also obtained the order of temporary injunction restraining Applicant No.1 from taking admission of Applicant No.2 in any of the school at Mumbai.

4. The contention of Applicant No.1 is that Mapusa, Goa is at the distance of 555 kilometers from Mumbai and therefore, she along with her daughter will not be in a position to effectively prosecute the said proceeding in Mapusa. Moreover, the Respondent is a wealthy businessman and politically influential person, being a sitting MLA of Aldona Constituency; whereas, Applicant No. 1 is a housewife and has no family support. She also apprehends serious threats to her life and also the kidnapping of her daughter, if she is required to travel to Goa to contest the said proceeding. Hence, she has filed this Application for transfer of the said proceeding from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

5. This Application is resisted by the Respondent by his 'Affidavit-in-Reply', challenging the maintainability of this Application in this Court. It is submitted that the Application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. in terms of the Goa Civil Courts Act, is required to be filed before the Court of the Principal District Judge at North Goa, District Panaji and this Court cannot have the jurisdiction to entertain such Application. Further, it is submitted that, in terms of the High Court at Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981, a permanent bench of the Bombay High Court to Goa, Daman and Diu came to be established and Chapter 6 of Part 6 of the provisions of the Constitution were made applicable to the High Court of Bombay with regard to its jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and the said Bench was vested with the powers for hearing of cases in respect of the State of Goa, Daman and Diu, except in the event of the Chief Justice ordering otherwise.

6. As per Section 12 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Civil Courts Act, the term 'High Court at Mumbai' having jurisdiction over Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu came to be substituted and therefore, in terms of the said provision, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain any Application for transfer in respect of the proceedings which are filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Court at Mapusa, as the said Court co




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top