The respondent, in the pretext of giving her a break for 10-15 days, booked a one-way ticket for the petitioner and sent her to Mumbai on 15.01.2021. On 10.08.2021, she received summons of the Court along with copy of the divorce petition filed in the Family Court at Mangaluru.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the parties had met on social media, one year prior to their marriage, she had even visited to Mangaluru after COVID-19 Pandemic/restrictions were eased and they met frequently. The respondent also paid professional fees for engineering grade to ensure petitioner’s financial independence as desired by her even prior to their marriage. Immediately, after reaching Mumbai, she applied for a job in ICICI Bank and sent her resignation from the Organization on 19.02.2021, where she was working with the respondent.
Shametha (2019) 9 SCC 409 and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar (2020) 14 SCC 657.
Order passed by this Court on 25.03.2022 records that another effort was required to be made through mediation for resolution of dispute between the parties.
The parties to either remain present in the Court or connect virtually for which the connection will be granted by the Registry.” From the order dated 13.10.2022, it is evident that the petitioner may be working in Canada as she stated that she wound up her work in Canada and is now living in India.
Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, this Court observed that may be this leniency was being misused by women.
Considering the status of the parties and the fact that it is a petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of case filed by the husband from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra, in our view no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra.
We do not find this to be a fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as good sense may prevail on the parties.
[Rajesh Bindal]………………….J.
Case Title: DELMA LUBNA COELHO Vs. EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES (2023 INSC 389)
Case Number: T.P.(C) No.-001475 / 2021
