DELMA LUBNA COELHO versus EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES

DELMA LUBNA COELHO versus EDMOND CLINT FERNANDES

The transfer petition was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient case was made out to shift proceedings from Mangaluru to Mumbai: the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada who attended mediation remotely, there is no child to be cared for, both parties are well educated and employed and the petitioner can travel to Mangaluru or seek exemption from personal appearance; there was no basis to exercise Article 142 to dissolve the marriage at this stage, nor to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner’s travel expenses though she may apply to the court concerned for reimbursement.

Parties
Petitioner: Delma Lubna Coelho; Respondent: Edmond Clint Fernandes
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Transfer Petition / Hearing and Decision on Prayer to Transfer Matrimonial Proceedings in the Supreme Court (transfer Petition (c) No. 1475 of 2021)
Outcome
Transfer petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Divorce, Mediation, Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Exercise of Article 142 Power, Video Conferencing for Appearance
Family Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Transfer of Proceedings Divorce Mediation Restitution of Conjugal Rights Exercise of Article 142 Power +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delma Lubna Coelho

Petitioner

Edmond Clint Fernandes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Transfer Petition / Hearing and Decision on Prayer to Transfer Matrimonial Proceedings in the Supreme Court (transfer Petition (c) No. 1475 of 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matrimonial proceedings (Divorce Petition M.C. No.331 of 2021) pending at Mangaluru should be transferred to Mumbai at the petitioner’s instance
  2. 2 Whether this Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage
  3. 3 Whether directions should be issued for payment/reimbursement of petitioner’s travel expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer petition was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient case was made out to shift proceedings from Mangaluru to Mumbai: the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada who attended mediation remotely, there is no child to be cared for, both parties are well educated and employed and the petitioner can travel to Mangaluru or seek exemption from personal appearance; there was no basis to exercise Article 142 to dissolve the marriage at this stage, nor to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner’s travel expenses though she may apply to the court concerned for reimbursement.

Court Disposition

Transfer petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Transfer Petition (C) No.1475 of 2021 dismissed
  • Petitioner permitted to file an application before the court concerned for reimbursement of travel expenses, to be considered on its merits