29 August 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent legal development, the High Court has granted a Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) seeking the transfer of two significant legal cases from Goa to Mumbai. This decision addresses ongoing proceedings involving a dispute over conjugal rights and child custody.

Background:

The applicant, represented by Ms. Punjani, sought to move RCS No. 6/2023 and CMAP No. 52/2023, which are currently pending in the Civil and Criminal Courts at Mapusa, Goa. RCS No. 6/2023 pertains to the respondent's request for restitution of conjugal rights, while CMAP No. 52/2023 involves a plea for the permanent custody of a minor child under Articles 137 and 138 of the Goa Portuguese Civil Code, 1867.

Ms. Punjani argued that, considering the hardships faced by the applicant—who is currently residing in Mumbai with her elderly parents and minor child—the transfer of these cases to the Family Court in Mumbai was necessary. She cited the decision of a Single Bench of the Court in Irene Blanch Khera Vs. Glenn John Vijay (2018) which supports the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. The argument emphasized the difficulty and inconvenience caused by traveling from Mumbai to Goa for ongoing legal matters, particularly given the applicant's responsibilities as a caregiver.

Respondent’s Opposition:

On the other hand, Mr. Kotwala, representing the respondent, opposed the transfer. He highlighted that the applicant had previously participated in the proceedings in Goa and argued that the transfer would impose additional burdens on the respondent, who would need to transport his witnesses from Goa to Mumbai. Mr. Kotwala also pointed out that the applicant had previously been provided legal aid in Goa, suggesting that this should not be a reason to grant the transfer.

However, Mr. Kotwala's arguments were found to be lacking sensitivity towards the applicant’s situation. The court noted that the previous rejection of the applicant's application under Section 151 of the CPC does not preclude her from seeking a transfer under Section 24. Additionally, the argument about the burden of transporting witnesses did not outweigh the hardships faced by the applicant and her child.

Court’s Ruling:

The High Court evaluated the socio-economic and personal circumstances of both parties in accordance with Section 24 of the CPC. It considered the broader implications of maintaining the current proceedings in Goa versus the practical difficulties faced by the applicant and her child.

The Court ultimately decided to grant the applicant’s request, noting that the principles of justice favoring the convenience and well-being of the applicant and her child outweighed the respondent's logistical concerns. The Court ordered the transfer of RCS No. 6/2023 and CMAP No. 52/2023 from the Mapusa Courts in Goa to the Family Court in Mumbai.

Conclusion:

This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted in a manner that accounts for the practical difficulties faced by individuals, particularly in sensitive family matters. The ruling reflects a judicial sensitivity to the hardships experienced by the applicant and aligns with the principles of equitable justice. Both the Goa courts have been directed to act on this order, facilitating a smoother legal process for the involved parties.