Allowed

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi., v. Krishna Marutinath Gosavi.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2021XFA/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this transfer application, the Bombay High Court ordered the transfer of a Hindu Marriage Petition filed in Islampur, Maharashtra, to the Court of Civil Judge at Bicholim, Goa. The applicant successfully argued for the transfer citing hardships regarding child custody and maintenance, reinforced by precedents affirming the common High Court's jurisdiction to transfer proceedings between its Ben

What did the court decide?

Hindu Marriage Petition No. 190 of 2019 pending in Islampur, Maharashtra is transferred to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Bicholim, Goa.

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi., Vs Krishna… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Andreza -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2020

¶4

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi

¶5

…...Applicant

¶6

V e r s u s

¶7

Krishna Marutinath Gosavi…...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Galileo Teles, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶9

Coram:-M. S. SONAK, J.
Date: 13th July 2021

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

1. Heard Mr. Teles, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The

¶12

Respondent, though served, is neither present nor represented.

¶13

2. Mr. Teles, the learned Counsel, has relied on the order made by this

¶14

Court in Transfer Application No. 5 of 2018 dated 28.02.2019 (Coram:

¶15

Nutan D. Sardessai, J.), and the judgment and order dated 19.07.2018 in

¶16

Irene Blanch Khera & anr. vs. Glenn John Vijay reported in (2018(6)

¶17

Mh.L.J. 199), to submit that this Court can order the transfer of a

¶18

Andreza -2-

¶19

proceeding filed in the Court in the State of Maharashtra to the Court in
the State of Goa.

¶20

3. In Transfer Application no. 5 of 2018, which was instituted by the present Applicant, this Court ordered the transfer of Hindu Matrimonial Petition No. 125 of 2018 from the Court at Islampur to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bicholim. The Hindu Matrimonial Petition No. 125 of 2018 was a proceeding instituted by the present Respondent to seek restitution of conjugal rights.

¶21

4. In the present application, the Petitioner is seeking the transfer of Hindu Matrimonial Petition No. 190 of 2019 instituted by the very same Respondent in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Islampur, seeking a divorce, to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim, Goa. Accordingly, the course adopted by this Court in Transfer Application no. 5 of 2018, can be adopted in this application as well.

¶22

5. Besides, Mr. Teles has referred to the decision of Irene Blanch Khera

¶23

(supra), which has considered the provisions of Section 20 of the Goa

¶24

Andreza -3-

¶25

Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, in terms of which, a common
High Court came to be constituted for Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar
Haveli and Daman and Diu. In its decision, the learned Single Judge (Dr.
Shalini Phansalkar Joshi) has considered the impact of these provisions and
the provisions of the CPC as well.

¶26

6. The relevant observations on this aspect are to be found in paragraphs 16, 17, and 18, which read as follows :

¶27

16. The question, whether it has changed the position as
such in respect of exercise of the jurisdiction by the Principal
Seat at Goa for the State of Goa and the Principal Seat at
Mumbai for the State of Maharashtra came for consideration
before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Edward Evan
Pereira and Anr. V/s. Goncalo Jose Agnelo and Anr. 2011(5)
Mh.L.J. 550 MANU/MH/0943/2011, wherein, in the light of
the issues raised before it and after considering the provisions
of Section 3 of the High Court at Bombay (Extension of
Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981, it was held
that by virtue of this provision, the jurisdiction of the High
Court at Bombay, including even the jurisdiction under the

¶28

Andreza -4-

¶29

Letters Patent, was extended to the Union Territory of Goa,
Daman and Diu. It was further held that by virtue of the
provisions of sections 20, 25 and 27 of the said Act, the High
Court of Bombay being the common High Court for the State
of Maharashtra and the State of Goa, the same jurisdiction,
including the jurisdiction under the Letter 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Andreza -5-

¶32

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.

¶33

18.This position is further made clear by the decision of the
Nagpur Bench in the case of Sangamitra w/o. Ramakant
Royalwar vs. Ramakant s/o Gangaram Royalwar, 2009(1)
Mh.L.J. 303 MANU/MH/0841/2008, 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

¶34

Andreza -6-

¶35

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.”

¶36

7. Now, coming to the merits, I find that the Applicant has given cogent reasons for seeking transfer. The Applicant has pointed out the hardships which are bound to result if the Applicant is required to attend to the proceedings at Islampur. Apart from the obvious financial difficulties, the Applicant has pointed out that the two children from the marriage are with her and the Respondent, has, despite orders from the Courts, defaulted in the payment of maintenance.

¶37

8. Having regard to the reasons sort out in the Civil Application, this transfer application is liable to be granted.

¶38

Andreza -7-

¶39

9. Accordingly, the Hindu Marriage Application No. 190 of 2019 presently pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Islampur, Maharashtra, is hereby transferred to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Bicholim, Goa.

¶40

10. This application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶41

11. The Registry to assist the Applicant in presenting this order to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Islampur, so that, the transfer is suitably effected and implemented. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim, Goa, to issue fresh notice to both the parties for appearance once the proceedings are received from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Islampur.

¶42

12. . This transfer application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

¶43

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶44

Digitally signed by ANDREZA ANDREZA PEREIRA PEREIRA Date: 2021.07.14 15:19:51 +05'30'

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi., v. Krishna Marutinath Gosavi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi., v. Krishna Marutinath Gosavi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sofia Shabnam., Vs Village Panchayat of Salvador-Do-Mundo, Rep. by Its Secretary.

Netra Sandeep Mahale Vs the President, Shri Shantadurga Devasthan, Marcela and Anr.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Parasnath Singh and 6 Ors.

Wilbur Ticlo and Anr., Vs Pravinkumar Bhomchand Jain and 2 Ors.

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.