MRS. SWETA MILIND HOBLE NEE SWETA SOMNATH SHIRODKAR vs. MR. MILIND ANIL HOBLE

2019:BHC-AS:10742
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt

Shivgan
1/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt

JUDGMENT :

under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') the
applicant­wife   is   seeking   transfer   of   the   following   proceedings
pending in the Court of Ad­hoc Civil Judge, Senior Division and 
Shivgan
2/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
Senior Civil Judge at Panjim, Goa to the Family Court at Bandra,
Mumbai:
(I) Civil   Miscellaneous   Application   No.73   of
2017 filed by the respondent­husband;
(II) Civil   Miscellaneous   Application   No.77   of
2017/B filed by the applicant for maintenance;
(III) Marriage Petition No.53 of 2018/B filed by
the husband for dissolution of marriage.

filed by the husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 seeking transfer of Petition No. A­2053 of 2008 filed by his wife
for dissolution of marriage, pending in the Family Court, Bandra,
Mumbai to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panjim, Goa. 

proceedings filed against each other from the Court at Panjim to the
Family Court, Bandra and vice­versa. It may be stated that both  are
seeking dissolution of marriage; one under the provisions of Article
4(1)(4) of the Family Laws of Goa filed by the husband and another
Shivgan
3/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the wife
filed in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

learned counsel for the parties, let me place on record a few facts.

Goa. At the time of marriage, the applicant was  21 years  and the

November, 2011 in the office of the Civil Registrar Service of Goa
according to the laws prevailing in the State of Goa. After marriage,
they   were   residing   at   Panajim.   The   applicant   is   housewife   and
husband is businessman. Out of this wed­lock,  Master Shaunak was

presently in care and custody of the wife.

mental and physical abuse for want of dowry by husband and her in­
Shivgan
4/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
laws. It is her case that children were man­handled by the respondent
and   his   parents,   to   compel   her   to   write   suicide   note.   That
apprehending  threats  to her life,  she  was rescued  and  placed in

her husband, mother­in­law and father­in­law under Section 498A,
323, 506II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

press conferences and giving press interviews to slander her image
by making false allegations against her. She alleged that her father­
in­law   has   made   her   life   miserable   by   substantially   influencing

the petition for the custody of his son and daughter being Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2017/B in the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Panjim, Goa. The Hon'ble Court was pleased
to grant access and visitation rights to the husband by order dated

Shivgan
5/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panajim.

maintenance, being Civil Miscellaneous Application No.77/2017/B in
September, 2017 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, B Court
at Panjim, Goa and also an application for the interim maintenance.
The learned Judge, however, declined interim maintenance by order

forced to move to Mumbai at her parents' house and accordingly, she
shifted to Mumbai in January, 2018 for betterment of their children
and their education.

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and application under
Section   12   of   the   Domestic   Violence   Act   at   Panjim,   Goa   were
withdrawn by her with a view to file the same in the Courts at
Mumbai.
Shivgan
6/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt

2018   for   dissolution   of   marriage   under   Section   13(1)(ia)   of   the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  in the Family Court at Bandra.

from Goa to Family Court at Mumbai on the following grounds:

from her parents' house at Mumbai.
(2)    She has no accommodation at Panajim and she will be required
to travel to attend the proceedings leaving minor children with her
parents.

experience of abusive treatment at the hands of the respondent and
her in­laws.

Party in Goa may influence the proceedings at Goa and there may not
be fair trial in the said proceedings.

Shivgan
7/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
considerations while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

for maintenance was also rejected by the Court at Goa.

following grounds:

under the Portuguese Civil Code and, therefore, in view of this the
Family   Court,   Mumbai   is   not   Court   of   competent   jurisdiction   to
entertain   and   dispose   of   the   Petition   filed   by   the   husband   for
dissolution of marriage.

in terms of Portuguese Family Law which contains special provisions
regarding dissolution of marriage being filed under Article 145(8) of
the   Portuguese   Family   Law   and,   therefore,   same   cannot   be
transferred to the Family Court for want of jurisdiction.

Shivgan
8/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
Goa  shifted to Mumbai only after order in custody application was
passed by the Hon'ble Civil Judge so as   to avoid the respondent
from accessing his children and without his consent   as it is not
permissible under the provisions in the Act.

under   Section   24   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   on   the
grounds;

Civil   Code   and   the   governing   family   laws   are   that   of   Goa   and,
therefore, petition for divorce filed by the wife under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 is not maintainable. 

whenever she  attends the  proceedings at Goa.   

Shivgan
9/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt

the preliminary issue of the maintainability of this application filed in
this Court. It is submitted that the application under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if any, is required to be filed before
the Court of Principal District Judge or before the permanent bench
of Bombay High Court at Goa. It is submitted that in terms of the
High Court of Mumbai (Extension of jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and
Diu) Act, 1981 permanent bench of Bombay High Court to Goa,
Daman and Diu came to be established and only the said Bench, is
vested with the powers of hearing of cases in respect of State of Goa,
Daman and Diu except in the event Hon'ble   Chief Justice orders
otherwise.

Blanch   Khera   v.   Shri   Glenn   John   Vijay   in   Miscellaneous   Civil
Application No.144 of 2018 and the learned Judge of this Court

Pereira and Anr. v. Goncalo Jose Agnelo and Others 2011 (5)

Shivgan
10/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
Judge, Senior Division, Mhapusa where the proceedings are pending
and the Family Court, Bandra where proceedings are sought to be
transferred are the Courts subordinate to this Court, and this Court
being, common High Court for both State of Maharashtra and State
of Goa has the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 24
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

of the application in this  Court is overruled.

that the matrimonial petition  filed by him at Panajim is under Article
4(1) and 4 of the Family Laws of Goa as applicable in the State of
Goa for dissolution of marriage and being filed under the special
laws, in force in the State of Goa, the Family Court at Bandra  is not a
Court of competent jurisdiction to try and decide the said  petition.

the Family Court under Section 7 is to decide the matters relating to;
Shivgan
11/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt

         (b) Maintenance;

Wherever Family Court is established in such cities the jurisdiction
shall vest in the Family Court in view of the provisions of Section
7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The wording clearly ousts the
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts so far as the matters enumerated in the
explanation   clauses;   once   the   Family   Court   is   established   for
particular   territory.   Under   Section   7   such   jurisdiction   over   the
matters would be irrespective of the law by which the marriage of the

dissolution   of   marriage   which   falls   under   Clause   (a)   of   the
explanation to Section. It is thus to be held Family Court at Mumbai
would have jurisdiction to try and decide the Petition filed by the
husband under Special/Local law of marriage applicable to the state
of Goa.
Shivgan
12/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt

Family Courts are not established at Goa and therefore Family Court,
Mumbai is not deemed district Court or subordinate civil Court for
exercising jurisdiction exercisable by the civil Judge, Panjim at Goa
where husband's petition for dissolution of marriage is pending and
of which transfer is sought under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.

agreement with it for following reasons;

the jurisdiction in respect of matters that may fall under explanation
to Section 7.

which falls under Clause (a) of the explanation.

general power of transfer and withdrawal may at any stage transfer
any suit, appeal or other proceedings to any Court subordinate to it
Shivgan
13/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
and competent to try and dispose of.

Panjim are Courts subordinate to the High Court.
(v) That jurisdiction over such matter in purview of clause (a)
to (g) to explanation is irrespective of law by which marriage of
couple is governed.
19 I,   therefore,   hold   Family   Court,   Mumbai   is   Court   of
competent   jurisdiction   to   try   and   dispose   of   the   Petition   for
dissolution   of   marriage   filed   by   the   husband   at   Goa   under
Special/Local laws applicable to that State.
20 That under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908,   power   of   the   High   Court   to   transfer   the   cases   cannot   be
whittled down so far as the matrimonial proceedings, initiated in the
Courts, subordinate to High Court. In fact under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court has got unquestionable
power to transfer the cases from one Court to other Court, as the
Shivgan
14/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
Family Court and the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panajim
are Courts subordinate to High Court.
 
21 The learned counsel appearing for the wife has relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of  Vinisha  Jitesh
Tolani v. Jitesh Kishor Tolani AIR 2010 SC 1915   wherein the
Petition was filed by the wife under Section 25 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for transfer of the matrimonial petition pending
before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco­de­Gama to the Court
of   competent   jurisdiction   in   Delhi.   In   the   cited   case,   marriage
between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnised in Goa
according   to   the   Hindu   rites   and  customs   and  subsequently,  the
marriage was registered at Goa. The Husband had filed the petition
for   annulment     of   the   marriage   under   Section   12   of   the   Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 at Goa. The transfer was opposed by the husband
on the ground that the civil proceedings relating to the marriage was
governed by the Civil Code of 1861, which was in force in Goa and
that as a result, petition for annulment could not be tried in any State
Shivgan
15/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
other   than   Goa.     It   was   contended   that   having   regard   to   the
provisions of Civil Code as prevalent in Goa, pending proceedings
could not be heard and disposed of in a State other than Goa.
. Identical contentions are raised in the present petition on
behalf  of   the   husband,   that   marriage   being  registered   under  the
prevailing laws applicable to the State of Goa, proceedings for the
annulment of such marriage cannot be tried except at the Civil Court
at   Goa   which   would   have   jurisdiction   to   try   proceedings   of
annulment of marriage.
22 The Apex Court in   Vinisha Jitesh Tolani (Supra)   held
that “notwithstanding the fact that the marriage between the parties
had been conducted in Goa, same having been conducted under their
personal laws and under Hindu rites and traditions, we are satisfied
that the claim  of the petitioner  is justified  and  there  can be no
difficulty in allowing the prayer  of the Petitioner”.   The   Apex   Court
thus, directed petition pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division at Vasco­da­Gama, Goa be transferred to the Family Court at
Shivgan
16/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
Tis Hazari, Delhi for disposal in accordance with law. 
. In my view though the transfer was sought under Section
25 of the Code, the judgment in the case of  Vinisha Jitesh Tolani
(Supra)  is a complete answer to the points and objections raised by
the learned counsel Ms. Sarnaik.
 
23 Ms. Sarnaik the learned counsel would contend that once
decree   is   passed   by   the   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Panajim,
aggrieved party has right of appeal (First Appeal) before the District
Court which is a substantive right and a party aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal has a right of
Second Appeal, which is also a substantive right and not merely a
matter   of   procedure.   Ms.   Sarnaik   submits   that   if   the   subject
proceedings are transferred from Goa to Family Court, Mumbai, right
of aggrieved party to prefer an appeal before the District Court would
be taken away in­as­much as under the Family Court's Act, Under
Section 19, appeal against every judgment or order lies before the
High   Court.   It   is,   therefore,   contended  that   right   of   appeal   is   a
Shivgan
17/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
substantive right and as it vests in a party as soon as proceeding is
initiated,  this vested right can not be taken away from the party by
change   in   law   unless   change   either   expressly   or   by   necessary
implication does so. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the
Apex   Court   in   the   case   of   Garikapati   Veeraya   v.   N.   Subbiah
Choudhary AIR 1957 SC 540 , it is held in this case thus:
“The r ight of appeal is a vested right and such a right  to
enter the superior Court accrues to the litigant and exists
as on and from the date the lis commences and although
it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is
pronounced   such   right   is   to   be   governed   by   the   law
prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or
proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of
its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal.”
 
24 Identical contention was raised in the case of  Mst. Ayesha
Bai   v.   Daleep   Singh   AIR   1961   Rajasthan   186 .   In   this   case,
Petitioner  had  applied  for  review  of  decision  given  in   the    First
Appeal. This appeal arose out of suit for recovery from the defendant.
The Defendant had preferred counter claim in the suit which was
eventually decreed and the suit was dismissed. Against that decree
appeal was preferred before the High Court. In the First Appeal, High
Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit of
Shivgan
18/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
the   plaintiff   and   dismissed   the   counter   claim   of   the   defendant.
Review of this judgment was sought on the ground that since the suit
was valued at Rs.5,000/­ in terms of the provisions of Rajasthan Civil
Court Ordinance, 1950, the appeal lies to the District Court, against
the   decree   of   the   trial   Court   and   not   to   the   High   Court.   The
contention was also raised that the appellant was deprived of his
right of Second Appeal by the High Courts entertaining the First
Appeal. The Division Bench however,  held thus: 
“ Petitioners contend that they have been deprived of  a
right of Second Appeal to this Court, which would have
been available to them if the appeal had been decided by
the District Judge. This contention is illusory. A right of
Second Appeal to this Court is limited merely to errors of
law.   Here,   they   have   had   the   advantage   of   the   entire
evidence being reviewed by the two judges of the superior
Court     who   after   a   careful   examination   of   the   matter
pronounced their judgment in the appeal.”   
25 It may be stated that under Section 19 of the Family
Court   Act,   1984   from   every   judgment   and   order   not   being
interlocutory order of the Family Court, appeal lies to the High Court
both on facts and law (       emphasis supplied   ). 
Thus, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,
Shivgan
19/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
aggrieved party has right to challenge the finding of the Family Court
on the fact and on law before the Division Bench of the High Court.
More so, right of Second Appeal to the High Court is limited to the
errors   of   the   law   but   under   Section   19   aggrieved   party   gets
advantage of entire evidence being reviewed by two judges of the
superior Court. Therefore, in substance, right of the aggrieved party
whose petition is transferred from Goa to Family Court at Mumbai is
not deprived of his right to prefer an appeal either on the question of
facts and/or law. More so, right of appeal is statutory right and not
fundamental.  In view of this submission of Mrs. Sarnaik is rejected. 
26 It may also be stated that under Section 24, paramount
consideration for exercise of the powers is to meet ends of justice. In
the case of  Subramaniam Swami  v. Ramkrishna Hegde (1990) 1
SCC 4 , dealing with power of Supreme Court to transfer case under
Section 25 of the Code, it is held 
“8 Under   the   old   section   the   State   Government   was
empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending
in the High Court of that State to any other High Court on receipt
of a report from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there
existed reasonable grounds for such transfer provided the State
Shivgan
20/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
Government of the State in which the other High Court had its
principal seat consented to the transfer. The present Section 25
confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court and is of wide
amplitude.   Under   the   present   provision   the   Supreme   Court   is
empowered at any stage to transfer any suit, appeal or other
proceeding from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a
High Court or other Civil Court of another State if it is satisfied
that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. The cardinal
principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the
ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other
proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration
for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is
true that if more than one court has jurisdiction under the Code to
try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the
Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in
any particular court convenient to him. The mere convenience of
the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise
of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum
will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a
party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the
adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. The
Parliament has, therefore, invested this Court with the discretion to
transfer the case from one Court to another if that is considered
expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude­­for
the ends of justice have been advisedly used to leave the matter to
the discretion of the apex court as it is not possible to conceive of
all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But the
paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to
law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is
imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even
if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The
petitioner's plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this
touch­stone.” 
27 In   the   case   of   Kulvinder   Kaur   v.   Kandi   Friends
Education Trust (2008) 3 SCC 659 ,   the Apex Court considered
Shivgan
21/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
various   tests   to   be   applied   in   respect   of   transfer   of   suits   under
Sections 24 and 25 of the Code and in paragraph 23 observed thus:
“23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and
keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad
propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer
have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of
convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or
witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place
of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points
involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get
justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important
questions of law involved or a considerable section of public
interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for
transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some
of the instances which are germane in considering the question
of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are,
however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as
exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the
Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to
have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a
case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make
such order.”  
28 In this case;
(i) Wife is residing at Mumbai and distance between Goa and
Mumbai is about 1000 km to and fro;
(ii) She has no place to stay at Goa;
(iii) Two school going children are under her care;
(iv) Maintenance is denied to her by the Court;
Shivgan
22/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
(v) She has no independent source of income (at least not
pointed out by the respondent­husband);
(vi) Circumstances brought on record like of press conferences
called by her father­in­law, and he being head of political party,
reasonable apprehension in her mind that she might not get
justice cannot be completely overlooked ;
are   the   facts   which   require   consideration   while
exercising the jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code. Though
husband is ready and willing to pay cost of traveling and stay, in
my view that itself will not mitigate the inconvenience to the
wife, her children and witnesses.
29 Considering all the facts and circumstances as well as
submissions made by the learned counsel and keeping in mind the
decisions of the Apex Court cited above, in my view, applicant­wife
would be deprived of fair trial if she is made to contest  proceedings
at Goa which is about 1000 kms away from her place of residence to
and from in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
Shivgan
23/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 03/04/2019
                                                                                           MCA-265-2018.odt
30 Thus, following order:
(a) Miscellaneous Civil Application No.265 of 2018 is
allowed and following proceedings are transferred from the Court of
Ad­hoc Civil Judge, Senior Division and Senior Civil Judge at Panjim,
Goa to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai:: 
       (i) Civil Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2017 ;
  (ii)     Civil   Miscellaneous   Application   No.77   of

  (iii)   Marriage Petition No.53 of 2018/B .
(b) Miscellaneous Civil Application (St) No.32454 of 2018 is
dismissed.
(c) Parties    to   appear   before   the   learned   Judge,     Family

advocate.

Bandra  to act on an authenticated copy of this order;
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan
24/24
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:02 :::