Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1475 OF 2021 DELMA LUBNA COELHO           …PETITIONER Versus EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES         …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T Rajesh Bindal, J. 1.          The present petition has been filed by the petitioner­ wife   seeking   transfer   of   M.C.   No.   331   of   2021   titled   as   “Dr. Edmond   Clint   Fernandes   vs.   Mrs.   Delma   Lubna   Coelho” pending   before   the   Family   Judge   at   Mangaluru,   Karnataka to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra.   2. Learned counsel for  the petitioner submitted that the   parties   met   on   Facebook   in   the   month   of   December, 2019   and   they   got   married   on   05.12.2020   as   per   Christian rites   and   customs   at   Our   Lady   of   Miracles   Church, Mangaluru.   Page 1 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 3. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the petitioner was living with  the  respondent  at her matrimonial home at Mangaluru   where   she   was   ill­treated,   insulted   and humiliated by the respondent and his family members.  She was accused for each and everything and offensive language was   used   against   her.     The   respondent,   in   the   pretext   of giving   her   a   break   for   10­15   days,   booked   a   one­way   ticket for   the   petitioner   and   sent   her   to   Mumbai   on   15.01.2021. Thereafter,   he   disconnected   all   relations   with   her.     On 05.07.2021,   after   COVID­19   Pandemic   restrictions   were eased,   the   petitioner   came   back   to   Mangaluru.     However, she   was   denied   entry   in   her   matrimonial   home   by   the respondent   and   his   family   members.       She   was   completely broken   down.   She   approached   the   Police   Station   at Pandeshwar, Mangaluru and lodged a complaint. 4. The   Superintendent   of   Police   intervened   and called   respondent   to   the   Police   Station.         The   respondent stated   that   he   has   already   issued   a   divorce   notice   and   his petition   seeking   divorce   is   in   the   process   of   filing.     Despite repeated   requests   made   by   the   petitioner,   the   respondent did not mend his ways. Page 2 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 5. On   06.08.2021,   she   replied   to   the   legal   notice stating   that   she   is   ready   and   willing   to   come   to   her matrimonial house and wanted to live a happy  married life. On   10.08.2021,   she   received   summons   of   the   Court   along with copy of the divorce petition filed in the Family Court at Mangaluru.   6. Learned counsel for  the petitioner submitted that she is living with her old aged parents at Mumbai.   There is no   one   at   her   home   to   accompany   her   from   Mumbai   to Mangaluru to contest the petition, which is more than 1,000 km   from   Mumbai.     She   does   not   even   know   Kannada language.  Whereas the respondent will not face any problem in case the petition is transferred to Mumbai (Maharashtra). The parties lived together only for a period of about 40 days. It is stated by the petitioner that if given an opportunity, she would   try   to   re­workout   the   marriage.     The   petitioner   was forced to take up job with a bank as the respondent refused to support her financially.   In case, she frequently travels to Mangaluru to attend the hearings, she is at the risk of losing her job being fresher.   It will not be possible for her to bear the cost as well. Page 3 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 7. 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   COVID­19   Pandemic/restrictions were eased and they met frequently.   She was well aware of the family background of the respondent and also the status of   his   family.     In   fact,   immediately   after   the   marriage,   the behaviour of the petitioner was not the same as was prior to the marriage.  The respondent resides with his aged parents. He   is   a   doctor   by   profession.     The   respondent   is   also   the founder and CEO of a global health organization involved in philanthropic activities.  Initially petitioner was proud of this but later on the attitude changed.  The respondent also paid professional fees for engineering grade to ensure petitioner’s financial independence as desired by her even prior to their marriage.     She   now   misbehaved   with   the   respondent’s parents   as   she   wanted   to   live   a   luxurious   life.     All   positive points prior to the marriage were now negative.   Page 4 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 8. In fact, the petitioner being a permanent resident of Canada, was habitual of that lifestyle.   The marriage was just to spoil the life of the respondent though initially, it was claimed   that   she   loves   Indian   culture   and   traditions. Though   it   is   alleged   that   the   respondent   had   shunted   out the   petitioner   from   matrimonial   home,   however,   it   was   her own   decision   to   move   out.   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.  She had joined the job in the   Bank   in   05.04.2021.     Number   of   efforts   were   made   by the respondent to re­concile the marriage but with no result and the efforts in the mediation also failed.  9. The   respondent   was   also   kept   in   dark   about location   of   new   flat   worth   ₹ 2,00,00,000/­   (Rupees   two crores   only)   purchased   by   her   and   her   family.     The respondent came to know about the address when she filed a complaint at the Women’s Police Station, on   06.07.2021. As   a   counterblast   to   the   Divorce   Petition   filed   by   the respondent, the petitioner has filed petition for restitution of conjugal   rights.     He   further   submitted   that   it   is   a   case   of Page 5 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 irretrievable breakdown of marriage as even during repeated mediations,   the   parties   could   not   reconcile.   This   Court   can grant   divorce   under  Article   142   of   the  Constitution   of   India without   consent   of   the   parties.     Reliance   has   been   placed upon   judgments   of   this   Court   in   R.   Srinivas   Kumar   v.   R. Shametha   (2019)   9   SCC   409   and   Munish   Kakkar   v. Nidhi Kakkar   (2020) 14 SCC 657 . 10. Number   of   other   arguments   were   also   raised   on merits, however, for the limited purpose of the consideration on   the   prayer   of   the   petitioner   for   transfer   of   the   case,   the same are not required to be noticed in much detail. 11. At the time of hearing, the petitioner was present in­person whereas the respondent had joined through video conferencing. 12. Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   the parties­in­person.   13. The   marriage   had   taken   place   on   05.12.2020. The parties lived together at their matrimonial home only till 15.01.2021.   Page 6 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 14. From   a   perusal   of   order   dated   17.12.2021,   it   is evident   that   there   being   possibility   of   settlement   of   the matrimonial   dispute,   the   matter   was   referred   to   Supreme Court Mediation Centre.  The Order passed by this Court on 04.03.2022 records that the efforts of mediation failed.   The respondent   sought   time   to   file   affidavit   for   satisfying   the Court   that   there   is   an   irretrievable   breakdown   of   marriage and this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage.   15. 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.     It was   referred   to   Maharashtra   State   Legal   Service   Authority. The Marriage Counsellor was also required to be associated. 16. The   order   passed   by   this   Court   on   02.09.2022 reads as under :         “ It   appears   that   the   marriage   has   not   worked from   the   initial   period   of   time   itself.     The   parties   got married after having met on facebook.           The   problem   is   what   the   wife   demands   and what the husband says is capable of paying. Page 7 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021        Let both the parties file affidavits alongwith list of movable/immovable assets.   They should also file their last three years’ Income Tax Returns.   Two   weeks’   time   is   granted   to   file   necessary affidavits. List on 29 th  September, 2022.         The parties to either remain present in the Court or connect   virtually   for   which   the   connection   will   be granted by the Registry.” 17. 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.     They   agreed   to   take   assistance   of   a   marriage counsellor.         Justice   S.J.   Vazifdar,   former   Chief   Justice   of Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   was   appointed   as   a Mediator.      The  report  has  been  received  from   the  Mediator stating   that   despite   spending   about   50   hours   in   different sessions,   the   parties   and   their   family   members   could   not arrive   at   a   settlement   and   the   mediation   failed,   as   per   the report   dated   08.02.2023.     It   is   specifically   recorded   by   the Mediator   in   his   report   that   during   four   months,   several meetings   were   held   with   the   parties   and   throughout   the Page 8 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 petitioner   was   in   Canada   and   she   attended   the   meetings through Video Conferencing.   18. Number   of   Transfer   Petitions   are   filed   in matrimonial cases, primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband.  This Court   normally   has   been   accepting   the   prayer   made   while showing leniency towards ladies.   In   Anindita Das   v . Srijit Das   (2006)   9   SCC   197 ,   this   Court   observed   that   may   be this   leniency   was   being   misused   by   women.     Hence,   each and every case has to be considered on its own merits.  19. In the facts of this case in hand, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada.  She had shifted there in the year   2014   and   was   working   there   on   a   well­paid   job, however, came to India for the matrimonial alliance.   She is presently   based   at   Mumbai,   Maharashtra   with   her   parents and   stated   to   be   working   in   ICICI   Bank.     There   is   no   child born   out   of   the   wedlock.   The   relation   started   after   the parties   met   on   Facebook.     As   far   as   the   respondent   is concerned,   he   is   a   doctor   by   profession   and   is   living   at Mangaluru, Karnataka.       Divorce Petition has been filed by the   husband   at   Mangaluru   where   he   resides   with   his   aged Page 9 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 parents.  Thereafter, the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Mumbai, Maharashtra.   20. 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.   The wife is a permanent resident of Canada.     She   must   be   travelling   abroad   regularly.   As   is evident from the observations in the Mediation Report dated 08.02.2023   submitted   by   Justice   S.J.   Vazifdar,   the petitioner  was in Canada throughout the mediation process and attended the proceedings online.  There is no child born out of wedlock to be taken care of.  Both the parties are well educated   and   engaged   in   their   own   jobs   and   professions. She   can   travel   to   Mangaluru   to   attend   the   hearing   of   the case   and   can   also   seek   exemption   from   appearance whenever   required.     Though,   at   present,   considering   the financial   condition   of   the   parties   on   the   basis   of   material which has come on record, we do not find that any ground is made out  for  issuing  direction to the  respondent  to pay  the Page 10 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 expenses   to   the   petitioner   for   travelling   to   Mangaluru. However,   still   in   case   she   feels   like   seeking   reimbursement of expenses, she shall be at liberty  to file application before the   court   concerned,   which   may   be   examined   on   its   own merits.  21. 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.     They   had   lived   together only   for   40   days.     It   takes   time   to   settle   down   in   marriage. The   judgments   relied   upon   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the respondent   are   distinguishable   as   in   those   cases proceedings had travelled up to this Court after decision by the   Courts   below   in   divorce   proceedings,   where   the   parties had   led   evidence   in   old   matrimonial   dispute.     There   was sufficient   material   on   record   and   the   ground   on   which   the marriage   was   dissolved   in   exercise   of   power   under   Article 142 of the Constitution of India, was irretrievable breakdown of   marriage   which   otherwise   is   not   a   ground   in   the   Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for dissolution of marriage.  Page 11 of 12 Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 22. As far as appearance of the parties through video conferencing   is   concerned,   sufficient   guidance   has   been given   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Santhini   v.   Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1 .     23. For   the  reasons   mentioned   above,  we  do   not   find any   merit   in   the   present   petition.     The   same   is   accordingly dismissed.       …….……………J.      [Rajesh Bindal] …….……………J.      [Aravind Kumar] New Delhi  18.04.2023 Page 12 of 12