Bombay High Court Allows Transfer of Matrimonial Petition from Goa to Mumbai on Grounds of Wife's Safety and Convenience. Section 24 CPC Transfer Granted as Wife Faced Threats and Had to Flee to Mumbai with Minor Daughter.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 164
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Smt. Irene Blanch Khera (wife) and her minor daughter Samaira Keira Glenn Souza Ticlo, filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking transfer of Matrimonial Petition No.84/2018/C from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, North Goa to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The respondent, Glenn John Vijay Ambrose e Sousa Ticlo, is the husband and a sitting MLA in Goa. The marriage was registered under the Civil Registration Services of Goa on 14 July 2006, followed by a church wedding on 24 December 2006. The couple resided in Goa, and their daughter was born and educated there. The wife alleged that she faced serious threats to her safety and that of her daughter, prompting her to flee to Mumbai. She claimed to have made three complaints to the local police, but due to the respondent's influence as an MLA, no action was taken. The respondent also allegedly threatened to kidnap the daughter. Consequently, the wife and daughter moved to Mumbai, where the daughter was admitted to a school. The wife contended that she had no source of income and could not afford to travel to Goa for court proceedings, especially given the safety risks. The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that the court in Goa had jurisdiction. The court considered the convenience of the wife and minor child, the safety concerns, and the fact that the wife was residing in Mumbai with no means to travel. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the applicants and that the transfer was necessary to avoid hardship. The application was allowed, and the Matrimonial Petition was transferred to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Proceedings - Section 24 CPC - Matrimonial Petition - Wife sought transfer of divorce petition filed by husband in Goa to Family Court in Mumbai on grounds of safety threats and inconvenience - Court held that the wife's safety concerns and the minor daughter's education and convenience warrant transfer - Held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the wife and child, and transfer is necessary to avoid hardship (Paras 1-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Matrimonial Petition No.84/2018/C pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, North Goa should be transferred to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is allowed. Matrimonial Petition No.84/2018/C pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, North Goa is transferred to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

Law Points

  • Transfer of matrimonial petition under Section 24 CPC
  • convenience of wife and minor child
  • safety concerns
  • jurisdiction of Family Court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 195

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2018

2018-07-19

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.

2018:BHC-AS:19503

Mr. Samarth Raju Moray for the Applicants; Mr. Ashwin Bhose a/w. Mr. Sachin Desai, Mr. Edith Dey, Mr. Ulhas Naik & Mr. Mikhail Dey for the Respondent

Smt. Irene Blanch Khera and Miss Samaira Keira Glenn Souza Ticlo

Shri Glenn John Vijay Ambrose e Sousa Ticlo

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application under Section 24 of CPC for transfer of matrimonial petition from Goa to Mumbai.

Remedy Sought

Transfer of Matrimonial Petition No.84/2018/C from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, North Goa to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

Filing Reason

Wife faced serious threats to her safety and that of her daughter from the respondent, who is a sitting MLA, and had to flee to Mumbai; she has no income and cannot travel to Goa for court proceedings.

Issues

Whether the matrimonial petition should be transferred from Goa to Mumbai under Section 24 CPC considering the wife's safety and convenience.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that the wife faced threats to her safety and that of her daughter, had to flee to Mumbai, has no income, and cannot afford to travel to Goa; the daughter is studying in Mumbai. Respondent argued that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home, the court in Goa has jurisdiction, and the transfer would cause inconvenience to him.

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience is in favour of the wife and minor child. The wife's safety concerns and the child's education in Mumbai warrant transfer to avoid hardship. Section 24 CPC allows transfer for the ends of justice.

Judgment Excerpts

This Application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Matrimonial Petition No.84/2018/C... Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent... 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.

Procedural History

The application was filed on an unspecified date, reserved on 3 July 2018, and pronounced on 19 July 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 24
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Regulations on Hawking in Mumbai — Balances Public Interest with Hawkers' Rights. The court affirmed the need for reasonable restrictions on hawking to prevent public nuisance while recognizing hawkers' rights under ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Execution Order in Consumer Dispute Case Due to Procedural Irregularities. Execution Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Issue Non-Bailable Warrant Against Directors Without Establishing Personal Liability.