IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1127 OF 2008
Vinisha Jitesh Tolani
@ Manmeet Laghmani ..Petitioner
Vs.
Jitesh Kishore Tolani ..Respondent
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) No.74 of 2009
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the wife of the
respondent under Section 25 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for transfer of Matrimonial Petition No.9
of 2008 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior
2
Division, at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, to a Court of
competent jurisdiction in Delhi.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a
Sikh by religion and was born in Kabul in
Afghanistan on 16th October, 1984. Till January,
1998, she pursued her primary education in
Afghanistan. Her family shifted to Delhi in the
month of February, 1988, where she continued to
live with her grandparents. She thereafter
continued her studies at the Guru Harkrishan Public
School, Nanak Piao, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, and
continued her education there till 1999.
3. The petitioner's father who had stayed behind
in Kabul on account of his business commitments
till 1992, finally shifted to London where he was
granted Afghan Refugee Asylum by the United
Kingdom. In May, 2001, the petitioner also migrated
3
to United Kingdom where her parents had been given
British Nationality.
4. While in the United Kingdom, the petitioner
started her own business and was self-employed and
independent till she got married to the respondent
in October, 2007. The respondent is a partner in a
construction business with his father under the
name and style of Tolani Developers at Panaji, Goa.
5. It appears that the petitioner met the
respondent through her brother-in-law who were both
Merchant Naval Officers and, thereafter, talks of
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent
were commenced. The Rokka ceremony was performed at
London and the marriage was fixed in New Delhi.
However, on the insistence of the respondent the
marriage was performed before the Civil Registrar
of Mormugao Taluka, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, on 15th
November, 2007 and the same was registered in the
4
presence of three witnesses arranged by the
respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner along with
the respondent shifted to a flat in Kamat Place,
Mangoor Hill in Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. According to
the petitioner, her troubles began thereafter and
in the month of February, 2008, she was informed by
the respondent and his parents that she had to go
to London for completion of certain formalities as
the marriage registration had not been accepted by
the authorities and the marriage was a nullity
according to them. Ultimately, on arriving at
London, she was informed by the Indian Consulate
that since the marriage had been performed within
India, the formalities had to be completed within
India itself.
6. Several incidents occurred thereafter which
caused her to commute between the United Kingdom
and India till finally she took up residence in a
rented accommodation in New Delhi. During the said
5
period the petitioner was served with certain
papers from the Court and she had no option but to
engage a lawyer to obtain a copy of the petition
filed by the respondent to enable her to protect
her rights. To her surprise she found that the
matter had been proceeded with ex-parte, without
even serving summons to her, showing her address as
Flat No.12, 2nd Floor, Kamat Place, Mangoor Hill,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, although, it was within the
knowledge of the respondent that she no longer
resided in the said flat. The petitioner also
discovered that proceedings for declaring her
marriage to be a nullity had been commenced while
she was in London and much before she returned to
India after her marriage. Even when the petitioner
was in India, she was not informed about the
pendency of the said proceedings during her stay
between April, 2008 to July, 2008. This compelled
her to fight for her rights while staying at Delhi,
6
but it was near impossible to contest the
litigation filed at Goa, as a result of which the
petitioner was compelled to file the present
transfer petition.
7. Appearing in support of the Transfer
Petition, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Advocate,
submitted that the marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent had been conducted in Goa
according to Hindu rites and customs, on 25th
October, 2007. Subsequently, the marriage was
registered on 15th November, 2007, also at Goa. On
18th April, 2008, the respondent filed a petition
under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
for annulment of the marriage, although, the
petitioner was then residing in the United Kingdom
having been given the status of an Afghan refugee.
However, between 1989 and 1999, the petitioner and
her parents lived in Delhi and it is only in 1999
that the petitioner left for the United Kingdom
7
along with her parents. It was also submitted that
the petitioner came back to India in order to
contest the petition filed by the respondent for
annulment of the marriage between him and the
petitioner in Goa. Learned counsel submitted that
having lived in Delhi for about 10 years, the
petitioner has a circle of friends and
acquaintances in Delhi to provide her support for
contesting the annulment petition filed by the
respondent, which she would not be in a position to
do in Goa, where she has no friends or
acquaintances. In fact, the petitioner went to Goa
for the first time after her marriage with the
respondent.
8. Mr. Sharma submitted that this was a fit case
where an order for transfer, as prayed for, was
required to be made in keeping with the decision of
this Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay [(2001)
10 SCC 41]. In the said decision, it was held that
8
since it was a matrimonial proceeding instituted by
the husband against the wife, the convenience of
the wife had to be considered in contesting the
suit and, accordingly, the matrimonial proceedings
ought to be transferred to Delhi, where the wife
was residing. Mr. Sharma submitted that this was a
case where the facts are more or less similar and
hence the transfer petition was liable to be
allowed.
9. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Advocate
appearing for the respondent-husband, while
opposing the stand taken on behalf of the
petitioner, denied that the petitioner was in fact
living in Delhi. Ms. Aggarwal submitted that the
petitioner was a resident of the United Kingdom
where she stayed with her parents on the basis of
the residential status of an Afghani refugee, as
granted to her by the U.K. Government. It did not
really matter to her whether the petition under
9
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was heard
either in Delhi or in Goa. Furthermore, Ms.
Aggarwal also raised a point of some interest to
the effect that civil proceedings relating to
marriage were governed by the Civil Code of 1867
which was in force in Goa and that as a result, the
petition for annulment could only be tried in the
State of Goa and not in any other State. Ms.
Aggarwal urged that the family laws of Goa, Daman &
Diu apply uniformly to all persons residing within
the State of Goa and that by virtue of the
provisions of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration)
Act, 1962, enacted on 27th March, 1962, provision
was made for continuance of existing laws and their
adaptation. Learned counsel referred to Section 5
of the Act which reads as follows :-
"5. Continuance of existing laws and
their adaptation. (1) All laws in force
immediately before the appointed day in
Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof
shall continue to be in force therein
1
until amended or repealed by the competent
Legislature or other competent authority.
(2) For the purpose of facilitating the
application of any such law in relation to
the administration of Goa, Daman and Diu
as a Union Territory and for the purpose
of bringing the provisions of any such law
into accord with the provisions of the
Constitution, the Central Government may,
within two years from the appointed day,
by order, make such adaptations and
modifications, whether by way of repeal or
amendment, as may be necessary or
expedient and thereupon, every such law
shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made."
10. Ms. Aggarwal also pointed out that by virtue
of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, the Central
Government was empowered to extend different
enactments to Goa, Daman & Diu,and the same reads
as follows :-
"6. Power to extend enactments to Goa,
Daman and Diu. The Central Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
extend with such restrictions or
modifications as it thinks fit, to Goa,
Daman and Diu any enactment which is in
force in a State at the date of the
notification."
1
11. Relying on Shri M.S. Usgaocar's book on
Family Laws of Goa, Daman & Diu, Ms. Aggarwal
submitted that family law in Goa treats the law of
marriage as a civil contract. It was pointed out
that Article 3 of the Chapter on Civil Marriage and
its solemnization provides that all Portuguese
shall solemnize their marriage before the
respective officers of Civil Registration, under
the conditions and in the manner established in
civil law, and only such marriage would be valid.
Ms. Aggarwal contended that having regard to the
provisions of the Civil Code as prevalent in Goa,
the pending proceedings could only be heard and
disposed of within the State of Goa. Reference was
made by Ms. Aggarwal to a decision of the Bombay
High Court in LPA No.31 of 1998, Monica Variato vs.
Thomas Variato [(2000) 2 Goa L.T. 149], in which it
was held that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, did
1
not have any application in the State of Goa since
the same had not been extended to the State of Goa.
It was ultimately held that even applying the
provisions of Private International Law and bearing
in mind the various personal laws in the country,
it would be the Civil Court exercising jurisdiction
in divorce matters in the State of Goa that could
hear and decide the petition. Ms. Aggarwal,
therefore, urged that it is only the Civil Court in
Goa which would have the jurisdiction to try
matrimonial disputes and no other Court would have
jurisdiction in that regard. Accordingly, the
transfer petition had to fail and the annulment
petition would have to be heard within the State of
Goa.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties, and, in
particular, the submissions made by Ms. Aggarwal
with regard to the application of the Goa, Daman &
1
Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, the Civil Code as
enacted on 25th December, 1910, and the provisions
of the Law of Marriage as a Civil Contract, which
came into force in Goa, Daman and Diu with effect
from 26th May, 1911.
13. As far as the Civil Code as enacted on 25th
December, 1910, and the provisions of the law of
Marriage as a Civil Contract in Goa, Daman and Diu
which came into force on 26th May, 1911, are
concerned, we are unable to agree with Ms. Aggarwal
that all marriages performed within the territory
of Goa unless registered should be void. The said
provision was altered by the decree of 22nd January,
1946, which restored the validity of both Catholic
marriages and Hindu marriages. Two Hindus,
therefore, can contract a marriage according to
Hindu religious rites or by way of a civil
marriage. Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act
extends the operation of the Act to the whole of
1
India except Jammu and Kashmir and also applies to
Hindus domiciled in the territories to which the
Act extends who are outside the said territories.
In other words, the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, would be applicable to the
petitioner's case and can be heard by any Court
having jurisdiction within the territories to which
it applies.
14. We are not convinced with the submissions
made by Ms. Aggarwal that the annulment proceedings
cannot be heard outside the State of Goa in view of
the existing laws which made the Civil Code and the
laws relating to marriage applicable to all persons
residing within the State of Goa. In addition to
the above, Sections 5 and 6 of the Goa, Daman & Diu
(Administration) Act, 1962, indicate that the
Central Government has the authority to extend
enactments applicable to the rest of the country.
In other words, even if it were to be held that it
1
is the customary law in Goa which would prevail
over the personal law of the parties, the same
could not be a bar to the transfer of the matter
outside the State of Goa to any other State. What
would be of relevance is the finding arrived at by
the Bombay High Court in Goa in Monica Variato's
case (supra) that even applying the principles of
Private International Law, bearing in mind various
personal laws in this country, even though the
spouses are domiciled in Goa in respect of a
marriage performed outside Goa but in any other
State of the Union, they would be governed by their
personal laws in so far as dissolution of marriage
is concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that the
marriage between the parties had been conducted in
Goa, the 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
1
allowing the prayer of the petitioner.
15. We, accordingly, allow the Transfer Petition
(Civil) No.1127 of 2008 and direct that Matrimonial
Petition No.9/2008/A titled Jitesh Kishore Tolani
Vs. Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani
pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Vasco-da-gama, Goa, be transferred to
the Family Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, for
disposal, in accordance with law.
16. Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.74 of 2009 filed
by the husband is, therefore, dismissed.
................................................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
................................................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi
Dated: 28th April, 2010.
1
ITEM NO. 1A Court No.3 SECTION XVIA
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1127 OF 2008
VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JITESH KISHORE TOLANI Respondent(s)
WITH T.P.(CRL) NO. 74 of 2009
Date: 28/04/2010 This Petition was called on for judgment
today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kumra,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the
Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship, and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
The Transfer Petition ) No. 1127 of 2008 is
allowed.
The Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 74 of 2009 is
dismissed.
(Ganga Thakur) (Juginder Kaur)
PS to Registrar Court Master
Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.
1
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1127 OF 2008
Vinisha Jitesh Tolani
@ Manmeet Laghmani ..Petitioner
Vs.
Jitesh Kishore Tolani ..Respondent
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) No.74 of 2009
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the wife of the
respondent under Section 25 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for transfer of Matrimonial Petition No.9
of 2008 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior
2
Division, at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, to a Court of
competent jurisdiction in Delhi.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a
Sikh by religion and was born in Kabul in
Afghanistan on 16th October, 1984. Till January,
1998, she pursued her primary education in
Afghanistan. Her family shifted to Delhi in the
month of February, 1988, where she continued to
live with her grandparents. She thereafter
continued her studies at the Guru Harkrishan Public
School, Nanak Piao, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, and
continued her education there till 1999.
3. The petitioner's father who had stayed behind
in Kabul on account of his business commitments
till 1992, finally shifted to London where he was
granted Afghan Refugee Asylum by the United
Kingdom. In May, 2001, the petitioner also migrated
3
to United Kingdom where her parents had been given
British Nationality.
4. While in the United Kingdom, the petitioner
started her own business and was self-employed and
independent till she got married to the respondent
in October, 2007. The respondent is a partner in a
construction business with his father under the
name and style of Tolani Developers at Panaji, Goa.
5. It appears that the petitioner met the
respondent through her brother-in-law who were both
Merchant Naval Officers and, thereafter, talks of
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent
were commenced. The Rokka ceremony was performed at
London and the marriage was fixed in New Delhi.
However, on the insistence of the respondent the
marriage was performed before the Civil Registrar
of Mormugao Taluka, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, on 15th
November, 2007 and the same was registered in the
4
presence of three witnesses arranged by the
respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner along with
the respondent shifted to a flat in Kamat Place,
Mangoor Hill in Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. According to
the petitioner, her troubles began thereafter and
in the month of February, 2008, she was informed by
the respondent and his parents that she had to go
to London for completion of certain formalities as
the marriage registration had not been accepted by
the authorities and the marriage was a nullity
according to them. Ultimately, on arriving at
London, she was informed by the Indian Consulate
that since the marriage had been performed within
India, the formalities had to be completed within
India itself.
6. Several incidents occurred thereafter which
caused her to commute between the United Kingdom
and India till finally she took up residence in a
rented accommodation in New Delhi. During the said
5
period the petitioner was served with certain
papers from the Court and she had no option but to
engage a lawyer to obtain a copy of the petition
filed by the respondent to enable her to protect
her rights. To her surprise she found that the
matter had been proceeded with ex-parte, without
even serving summons to her, showing her address as
Flat No.12, 2nd Floor, Kamat Place, Mangoor Hill,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, although, it was within the
knowledge of the respondent that she no longer
resided in the said flat. The petitioner also
discovered that proceedings for declaring her
marriage to be a nullity had been commenced while
she was in London and much before she returned to
India after her marriage. Even when the petitioner
was in India, she was not informed about the
pendency of the said proceedings during her stay
between April, 2008 to July, 2008. This compelled
her to fight for her rights while staying at Delhi,
6
but it was near impossible to contest the
litigation filed at Goa, as a result of which the
petitioner was compelled to file the present
transfer petition.
7. Appearing in support of the Transfer
Petition, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Advocate,
submitted that the marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent had been conducted in Goa
according to Hindu rites and customs, on 25th
October, 2007. Subsequently, the marriage was
registered on 15th November, 2007, also at Goa. On
18th April, 2008, the respondent filed a petition
under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
for annulment of the marriage, although, the
petitioner was then residing in the United Kingdom
having been given the status of an Afghan refugee.
However, between 1989 and 1999, the petitioner and
her parents lived in Delhi and it is only in 1999
that the petitioner left for the United Kingdom
7
along with her parents. It was also submitted that
the petitioner came back to India in order to
contest the petition filed by the respondent for
annulment of the marriage between him and the
petitioner in Goa. Learned counsel submitted that
having lived in Delhi for about 10 years, the
petitioner has a circle of friends and
acquaintances in Delhi to provide her support for
contesting the annulment petition filed by the
respondent, which she would not be in a position to
do in Goa, where she has no friends or
acquaintances. In fact, the petitioner went to Goa
for the first time after her marriage with the
respondent.
8. Mr. Sharma submitted that this was a fit case
where an order for transfer, as prayed for, was
required to be made in keeping with the decision of
this Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay [(2001)
10 SCC 41]. In the said decision, it was held that
8
since it was a matrimonial proceeding instituted by
the husband against the wife, the convenience of
the wife had to be considered in contesting the
suit and, accordingly, the matrimonial proceedings
ought to be transferred to Delhi, where the wife
was residing. Mr. Sharma submitted that this was a
case where the facts are more or less similar and
hence the transfer petition was liable to be
allowed.
9. Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, learned Advocate
appearing for the respondent-husband, while
opposing the stand taken on behalf of the
petitioner, denied that the petitioner was in fact
living in Delhi. Ms. Aggarwal submitted that the
petitioner was a resident of the United Kingdom
where she stayed with her parents on the basis of
the residential status of an Afghani refugee, as
granted to her by the U.K. Government. It did not
really matter to her whether the petition under
9
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was heard
either in Delhi or in Goa. Furthermore, Ms.
Aggarwal also raised a point of some interest to
the effect that civil proceedings relating to
marriage were governed by the Civil Code of 1867
which was in force in Goa and that as a result, the
petition for annulment could only be tried in the
State of Goa and not in any other State. Ms.
Aggarwal urged that the family laws of Goa, Daman &
Diu apply uniformly to all persons residing within
the State of Goa and that by virtue of the
provisions of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration)
Act, 1962, enacted on 27th March, 1962, provision
was made for continuance of existing laws and their
adaptation. Learned counsel referred to Section 5
of the Act which reads as follows :-
"5. Continuance of existing laws and
their adaptation. (1) All laws in force
immediately before the appointed day in
Goa, Daman and Diu or any part thereof
shall continue to be in force therein
1
until amended or repealed by the competent
Legislature or other competent authority.
(2) For the purpose of facilitating the
application of any such law in relation to
the administration of Goa, Daman and Diu
as a Union Territory and for the purpose
of bringing the provisions of any such law
into accord with the provisions of the
Constitution, the Central Government may,
within two years from the appointed day,
by order, make such adaptations and
modifications, whether by way of repeal or
amendment, as may be necessary or
expedient and thereupon, every such law
shall have effect subject to the
adaptations and modifications so made."
10. Ms. Aggarwal also pointed out that by virtue
of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, the Central
Government was empowered to extend different
enactments to Goa, Daman & Diu,and the same reads
as follows :-
"6. Power to extend enactments to Goa,
Daman and Diu. The Central Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
extend with such restrictions or
modifications as it thinks fit, to Goa,
Daman and Diu any enactment which is in
force in a State at the date of the
notification."
1
11. Relying on Shri M.S. Usgaocar's book on
Family Laws of Goa, Daman & Diu, Ms. Aggarwal
submitted that family law in Goa treats the law of
marriage as a civil contract. It was pointed out
that Article 3 of the Chapter on Civil Marriage and
its solemnization provides that all Portuguese
shall solemnize their marriage before the
respective officers of Civil Registration, under
the conditions and in the manner established in
civil law, and only such marriage would be valid.
Ms. Aggarwal contended that having regard to the
provisions of the Civil Code as prevalent in Goa,
the pending proceedings could only be heard and
disposed of within the State of Goa. Reference was
made by Ms. Aggarwal to a decision of the Bombay
High Court in LPA No.31 of 1998, Monica Variato vs.
Thomas Variato [(2000) 2 Goa L.T. 149], in which it
was held that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, did
1
not have any application in the State of Goa since
the same had not been extended to the State of Goa.
It was ultimately held that even applying the
provisions of Private International Law and bearing
in mind the various personal laws in the country,
it would be the Civil Court exercising jurisdiction
in divorce matters in the State of Goa that could
hear and decide the petition. Ms. Aggarwal,
therefore, urged that it is only the Civil Court in
Goa which would have the jurisdiction to try
matrimonial disputes and no other Court would have
jurisdiction in that regard. Accordingly, the
transfer petition had to fail and the annulment
petition would have to be heard within the State of
Goa.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties, and, in
particular, the submissions made by Ms. Aggarwal
with regard to the application of the Goa, Daman &
1
Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, the Civil Code as
enacted on 25th December, 1910, and the provisions
of the Law of Marriage as a Civil Contract, which
came into force in Goa, Daman and Diu with effect
from 26th May, 1911.
13. As far as the Civil Code as enacted on 25th
December, 1910, and the provisions of the law of
Marriage as a Civil Contract in Goa, Daman and Diu
which came into force on 26th May, 1911, are
concerned, we are unable to agree with Ms. Aggarwal
that all marriages performed within the territory
of Goa unless registered should be void. The said
provision was altered by the decree of 22nd January,
1946, which restored the validity of both Catholic
marriages and Hindu marriages. Two Hindus,
therefore, can contract a marriage according to
Hindu religious rites or by way of a civil
marriage. Section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act
extends the operation of the Act to the whole of
1
India except Jammu and Kashmir and also applies to
Hindus domiciled in the territories to which the
Act extends who are outside the said territories.
In other words, the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, would be applicable to the
petitioner's case and can be heard by any Court
having jurisdiction within the territories to which
it applies.
14. We are not convinced with the submissions
made by Ms. Aggarwal that the annulment proceedings
cannot be heard outside the State of Goa in view of
the existing laws which made the Civil Code and the
laws relating to marriage applicable to all persons
residing within the State of Goa. In addition to
the above, Sections 5 and 6 of the Goa, Daman & Diu
(Administration) Act, 1962, indicate that the
Central Government has the authority to extend
enactments applicable to the rest of the country.
In other words, even if it were to be held that it
1
is the customary law in Goa which would prevail
over the personal law of the parties, the same
could not be a bar to the transfer of the matter
outside the State of Goa to any other State. What
would be of relevance is the finding arrived at by
the Bombay High Court in Goa in Monica Variato's
case (supra) that even applying the principles of
Private International Law, bearing in mind various
personal laws in this country, even though the
spouses are domiciled in Goa in respect of a
marriage performed outside Goa but in any other
State of the Union, they would be governed by their
personal laws in so far as dissolution of marriage
is concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that the
marriage between the parties had been conducted in
Goa, the 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
1
allowing the prayer of the petitioner.
15. We, accordingly, allow the Transfer Petition
(Civil) No.1127 of 2008 and direct that Matrimonial
Petition No.9/2008/A titled Jitesh Kishore Tolani
Vs. Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani
pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Vasco-da-gama, Goa, be transferred to
the Family Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, for
disposal, in accordance with law.
16. Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.74 of 2009 filed
by the husband is, therefore, dismissed.
................................................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
................................................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi
Dated: 28th April, 2010.
1
ITEM NO. 1A Court No.3 SECTION XVIA
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1127 OF 2008
VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JITESH KISHORE TOLANI Respondent(s)
WITH T.P.(CRL) NO. 74 of 2009
Date: 28/04/2010 This Petition was called on for judgment
today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Kumra,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the
Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship, and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
The Transfer Petition ) No. 1127 of 2008 is
allowed.
The Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 74 of 2009 is
dismissed.
(Ganga Thakur) (Juginder Kaur)
PS to Registrar Court Master
Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.
1
Comments
Post a Comment