FRANCIS JOSEPH Vs. SHOBHA JOSEPH ALIAS SHOBHA CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application has been filed by the applicant ­ original opponent under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of the Civil Misc. Application No. 67 of 2011, filed by the respondent herein ­ original applicant under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for guardianship and obtaining custody of the minor, before the Family Court at Vadodara to the District Court, Margao, South Goa in Goa. The applicant herein, by way of amendment, has alternatively prayed for transfer of the aforesaid application to the Family Court in Ahmedabad or any other Family Court in Gujarat.

(2.) HEARD , Ms. Asha Desai, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Indravadan Parmar, learned advocate for the respondent.

(3.) PER contra, learned advocate Mr. Indravadan Parmar for the respondent has vehemently opposed the present transfer application. The learned advocate for the respondent raised certain preliminary objections and submitted that the present application suffers from the suppression of the material facts i.e. non compliance of various orders passed by the learned trial Judge, dismissal of two petitions filed by the applicant, pendency of the Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2012 filed by the respondent before the Hon'ble the Apex Court seeking transfer of Matrimonial Petition No. 112/2011/A from Margao, Goa to Vadodara. Besides, the learned advocate for the respondent, on the aspect of jurisdiction, submitted that the respondent herein ­ original applicant has a right to choose his own forum and the law entitles her as such to choose her forum. Moreover, the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that besides increasing expenses and inconvenience to the original applicant, the scope of possible complications that may occur, may also be taken into consideration. The learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that the present application has been filed at a belated stage and after several proceedings. The learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that the applicant has sought transfer of the application in question mainly casting doubts of the acts of the learned trial Judge, on mere assumptions and selfclaimed apprehensions, for which neither proper justification is coming out nor any evidence is produced by the applicant on record. Moreover, while drawing attention of the Court to the aspect of safety and security of the respondent herein being a lady, he submitted that the present applicant had, on 15/02/2011, abducted the minor child from her school at Vadodara and at present, she is in his illegal custody, for which a complaint was also filed with the Fatehgunj Police Station, Vadodara on the very same day, and thereby, he submitted that the conduct of the present applicant may also be taken into consideration. The learned advocate for the respondent, by inviting attention of the Court to the reply filed by respondent, submitted that taking into consideration the same, present application deserves no consideration and requested this Court to dismiss the application. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 and the decision of this Court in Khodabhai Manibhai Vs. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 1983 Gujarat 189.