Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 osk mca-144-2018.odt 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.1is 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 osk mca-144-2018.odt 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 comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Goa Bench of this Court.

 osk                                                                                                                        mca-144-2018.odt



7]                      It is also contented that as the Respondent is of Goan

origin and as the marriage of Applicant No.1 and Respondent has been registered under the provisions of the Law of Marriage embodied in the Portuguese Civil Code 1867, only the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa, Goa, has the jurisdiction to try and determine the matrimonial petition in terms of law applicable thereto. Therefore such proceedings cannot be transferred out of Goa, considering the separate provisions of the Civil Code applicable thereto. It is submitted that the Matrimonial Petition No.84/2018/C is filed under Article 137, 138 and 141 of the Portuguese Civil Code as applicable in the State of Goa which governs the parental control during subsistence of marriage. Therefore, the said petition having been filed under a Special Law in force in the State of Goa in the terms of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 , it cannot be decided or heard by the Court outside the Goa. On this ground also, it was submitted that the Family Court at Bandra does not have the jurisdiction to try matrimonial matters of persons of Goan origin in the matters of Article 137, 138 and 141 of the said Act. 8] As regards the merits of the Application, it is denied that there is any apprehension of threat to the life of Applicant No.1 at the hands of the Respondent. It is also denied that the Respondent has in osk mca-144-2018.odt any way attempted to kidnap Applicant No.2 or there was any cause for Applicant No.1 to file the complaints with the police. It is submitted that the Applicants and the Respondent are the permanent residents of Goa. Applicant No.2 was very much studying in the school at Goa. Only with an oblique intention and motive Applicant No.1 has left the Goa with Applicant No.2 and brought her to Mumbai without any reasons. Therefore, the Respondent was constrained to file proceeding before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa for declaration that he alone is entitled to exercise parental control over Applicant No.2 and for injunction restraining Applicant No.1 from taking 'admission' of Applicant No.2 in any of the school in Mumbai. 9] According to the Respondent, he is having very cordial relations with his daughter and hence, there is no substance in the allegations of his causing any harm to his daughter or even to Applicant No.1, if they are required to attend the Court at Mapusa in Goa. Respondent has therefore prayed for dismissal of this Application on both the counts, for its non-maintainability and being sans any merit.

10] According to learned counsel for the Applicants, however, this Application is very much maintainable in this Court, this Court being the common High Court for the two States of Maharashtra and osk mca-144-2018.odt Goa. It is submitted that just as Nagpur Bench of this Court can transfer the proceeding lying outside its exclusive judicial districts to the judicial districts in its jurisdiction and vice-versa, then no exception can be made in respect of this High Court's Bench at Panaji, Goa also. This Court can very well avail its jurisdiction and there is no bar at all in that respect.

17] This judgment, thus, makes it clear that the High Court of Bombay, being a common High Court for the State of Maharashtra and 1 MANU/MH/0943/2011, 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 550 osk mca-144-2018.odt the State of Goa, the same jurisdiction including the jurisdiction under the Letters Patent is exercisable by the High Court of Bombay sitting at Panaji (Goa), which is exercisable by the High Court of Bombay at its Principal Seat at Bombay and its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad. Therefore, if the Principal Seat of the High Court at Bombay can transfer the proceedings pending in the judicial Districts in exclusive jurisdiction of its Benches at Aurangabad or Nagpur, then it follows that the Principal Seat of High Court at Bombay can also transfer the proceedings which are lying within the exclusive jurisdiction of its Seat at Goa, as both the Courts viz. the Court in which proceedings are pending and the Court to which the proceedings are to be transferred are subordinate to the common High Court. The provisions of Section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987 are clear to the effect that the High Court of Bombay is the common to both the State of Maharashtra and the State of Goa. Hence, there cannot be any distinction in exercise of jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings lying in the territories within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Bombay and the proceedings lying in the exclusive jurisdiction of its Seat at Goa. 18] This position is further made clear by the decision of the Nagpur Bench in the case of Sangamitra w/o. Ramakant Royalwar osk mca-144-2018.odt V/s. Ramakant s/o. Gangaram Royalwar2 wherein also the similar issue was raised before the Nagpur Bench, as to, whether the Bench at Nagpur has jurisdiction to transfer the matrimonial petition filed by the Respondent against the wife to another Court, when such proceeding was pending in the judicial districts of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bench at Aurangabad and Principal Seat at Mumbai. While deciding the said question, in paragraph No.17, it was held that, "in view of Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has the jurisdiction and competence to take cognizance of such Applications". Thus, the objection to that effect was overruled. Hence, it follows that if the Nagpur Bench is having the jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings, which are lying exclusively within the jurisdiction of another Bench, may be at Aurangabad or Principal Seat at Bombay, then the Principal Seat Bombay is required to be held as having the jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings pending exclusively within the jurisdiction of its Seat at Goa. 19] In this respect, learned counsel for the Applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Chalasani Deepthi V/s. Chalasani Krishna Chaittanya 3. In 2 MANU/MH/0841/2008, 2009(1) Mh.L.J.303 3 MANU/AP/1056/2015, 2016(5) ALD 165 osk mca-144-2018.odt that case also, the petition was filed for withdrawal and transfer of the proceedings filed by Respondent-husband for 'Restitution of conjugal Rights' pending on the file of Family Court at Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar to the Family Court at Vijayawada. The objection to the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was taken on the ground that the said Court is not vested with jurisdiction to transfer the case pending in the State of Telangana to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was contended that the jurisdiction to transfer the cases pending from one High Court or Civil Court in one State to a High Court or Civil Court of any other State is vested with Hon'ble Supreme Court as per Section 25(1) of C.P.C..