Supreme Court Denies Transfer of Divorce Case: Delma Lubna Coelho vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2023

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Rajesh Bindal, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a wife, who is a permanent resident of Canada, seek the transfer of a divorce case filed by her husband from his place of residence to hers, especially when she is currently residing in India? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on the specific circumstances of the parties involved. The Court ultimately decided against transferring the case, emphasizing the need to consider the unique facts of each case rather than applying a blanket rule. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

The petitioner, Delma Lubna Coelho, and the respondent, Edmond Clint Fernandes, met on Facebook in December 2019. They married on December 5, 2020, in Mangaluru, Karnataka, following Christian rites. After the marriage, the petitioner lived with the respondent in Mangaluru. She alleged ill-treatment, insults, and humiliation by the respondent and his family. On January 15, 2021, the respondent sent the petitioner to Mumbai, ostensibly for a short break, but then severed all contact with her. When the petitioner returned to Mangaluru on July 5, 2021, she was denied entry into her matrimonial home. She then filed a police complaint.

The police intervened, and the respondent stated he had already issued a divorce notice and was in the process of filing a divorce petition. The petitioner expressed her desire to reconcile, but the respondent did not agree. On August 10, 2021, she received summons for the divorce petition filed by the respondent in the Family Court at Mangaluru. The petitioner, residing with her elderly parents in Mumbai, sought the transfer of the divorce case to Mumbai, citing difficulties in traveling to Mangaluru, language barriers, and potential job loss due to frequent travel.

The respondent argued that the petitioner was aware of his family background and status before the marriage. He claimed her behavior changed after the marriage, and she misbehaved with his parents. He also stated that she moved out of her own accord and that she had applied for a job in Mumbai soon after. The respondent also highlighted that he made efforts to reconcile, but they were unsuccessful. He further contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and sought a divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on December 17, 2021, to explore settlement possibilities. However, the mediation efforts failed, as recorded in the Court’s order on March 4, 2022. The respondent then sought time to file an affidavit to demonstrate the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and requested the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage. On March 25, 2022, the Court referred the matter to the Maharashtra State Legal Service Authority for further mediation, also involving a marriage counselor. Despite these efforts, mediation failed. The Court then appointed Justice S.J. Vazifdar, a former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as a mediator. After approximately 50 hours of sessions, the mediation failed, as reported on February 8, 2023.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the issue of transfer of cases, particularly in matrimonial disputes, and the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution of India for the dissolution of marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. Article 142 of the Constitution of India allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

The Court also considered the general practice of showing leniency towards women in transfer petitions, as observed in previous cases like Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197. However, the Court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own merits.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that she was living with her elderly parents in Mumbai and had no one to accompany her to Mangaluru, which is over 1,000 km away.
• She stated that she does not know the Kannada language, which is spoken in Mangaluru.
• The petitioner contended that she would face difficulty in managing her job if she had to frequently travel to Mangaluru for hearings.
• She expressed a desire to reconcile and “re-work” the marriage, if given a chance.
• She was forced to take up a job with a bank as the respondent refused to support her financially.
• She argued that it would be more convenient for the respondent if the case was transferred to Mumbai.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the petitioner was aware of his family background and status before the marriage.
• He contended that her behavior changed immediately after the marriage and she misbehaved with his parents.
• He stated that the petitioner moved out of her own accord and started working in Mumbai.
• He mentioned that he had made several attempts to reconcile, but they were unsuccessful.
• He highlighted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and therefore, the Court should grant a divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
• The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner, being a permanent resident of Canada, was used to a different lifestyle.
• He argued that the marriage was just to spoil his life.
• He further stated that the petitioner had purchased a flat worth ₹2,00,00,000 without informing him.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument to use Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown is innovative, as it seeks to bypass the limitations of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this case. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the transfer petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of the divorce case from Mangaluru, Karnataka, to Mumbai, Maharashtra, should be allowed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197* to highlight that while leniency is often shown to women in transfer petitions, each case must be decided on its own facts.
• The Court distinguished the cases of R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha (2019) 9 SCC 409* and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar (2020) 14 SCC 657*, stating that those cases had progressed through lower courts, unlike the present case.
• The Court cited Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1* for guidance on the appearance of parties through video conferencing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The petitioner’s status as a permanent resident of Canada, implying her ability to travel internationally.
• The fact that both parties are well-educated and employed, suggesting they have the resources to manage travel and legal proceedings.
• The absence of children from the marriage, which reduces the complexity of the case.
• The failure of multiple mediation attempts, indicating a lack of willingness to reconcile.
• The Court’s view that the case had not progressed sufficiently to warrant the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution of marriage.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments for transferring the case based on the wife’s convenience but ultimately rejected them. It emphasized that each case must be decided on its own merits, and in this particular instance, the petitioner’s circumstances did not warrant a transfer. The Court also declined to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage, as the case had not progressed sufficiently.

The Court stated, “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 Court further observed, “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.”

Additionally, the Court noted, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court does not automatically grant transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, even when filed by women.
• Each case is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances.
• The Court considers factors such as the financial status and educational background of the parties, their ability to travel, and the presence of children.
• The Court is hesitant to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolving a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown at an early stage of the proceedings.
• Parties can appear through video conferencing as per the guidelines provided in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1.

Directions

The Court did not issue any specific directions, except that the petitioner was at liberty to file an application before the concerned court seeking reimbursement of expenses, which may be examined on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not automatically grant transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, even when filed by women, and each case will be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. This judgment reinforces the principle that while leniency is often shown towards women, it is not a blanket rule, and the court will consider various factors before deciding on a transfer petition. This ruling does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the factors that the court will consider while deciding on a transfer petition.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition filed by the wife, Delma Lubna Coelho, seeking to move her divorce case from Mangaluru to Mumbai. The Court reasoned that the wife’s status as a permanent resident of Canada, her educational background, and the absence of children in the marriage did not justify the transfer. The Court also declined to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage at this stage. This decision underscores the principle that transfer petitions are not automatically granted and each case is evaluated based on its unique circumstances.