VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANI versus JITESH KISHORE TOLANI

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 28-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 5 S.C.R. 595 
VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANI 
A 
v. 
JITESH KISHORE TOLANI 
(Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1127 of 2008) 
APRIL 28, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
s. 25 - Transfer of 
8 
. matrimonial petition - Marriage between parties conducted in 
Goa under their personal laws and under Hindu rites and C 
traditions ..,. Registration of marriage in Goa - Husband filing 
petition for annulment of marriage in Goa - Meanwhile, wife 
v.!ls commuting between United Kingdom and India and finally 
settled in Delhi - Petition u/s. 25 by wife, seeking transfer of 
case pending in Goa to Delhi - Maintainability of - Held; 
D 
Maintainable - Provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are 
· applicable and matter can be heard by any court having 
jurisdiction within the territories to which it applies - In view of 
ss. 5 and 6 of the 1962 Act, even if the customary law in Goa 
. would prevail over the personal law of parties, it would not be 
E 
a bar to transfer the matter outside the State of Goa to any 
other State - Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration) Act, .1962 
- ss. 5 and 6 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 12. 
The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the 
respondent-husband was conducted in Goa as per the 
F 
Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, the marriage was 
registered in Goa. The respondent-husband filed a 
petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 
for annulment of marriage. It is alleged that the petitioner-
wife was residing in United Kingdom with her parents G 
having been given the status of an Afghan refugee. The 
petitioner came back to India to contest the petition filed 
by the respondent. In view of the several developments 
• 
she took up a rented accommodation in Delhi. Thereafter, 
595 
HI' 
I 
• . 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A she filed a petition u/s. 25 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
for transfer of the matrimonial petition pending before the 
court in Goa to a court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi. 
Allowing the transfer petition filed by the wife and 
8 dismissing the transfer petition filed by the husband, the 
Court 
HELD: 1.1. As far as the Civil Code as enacted on 
25th December, 1910, and the provisions of the Law of 
Marriage as a Civil Contract in Goa, Daman and Diu which 
C came into force on 26th May, 1911, are concerned, it 
cannot be accepted that all marriages performed within 
the territory of Goa unless registered should be void. The 
said provision was altered by the decree of 22nd January, 
1946, which restored the validity of both Catholic 
O marriages and Hindu marriages. Therefore, two Hindus 
can contract a marriage according to Hinclu religious rites 
or by way of a civil marriage. Section 2 of the Hindu 
Marriage Act extends the operation of the Act to the whole 
of India except Jammu and Kashmir and also applies to 
E Hindus domiciled in the territories to which the Act 
extends who are outside the said territories. Thus, the 
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be 
applicable to the petitioner's case and can be heard by 
any Court having jurisdiction within the territories to 
F which it applies. [Para 13] [603~D-G] 
1.2. It cannot be accepted that the annulment 
proceedings cannot be heard outside the State of Goa in 
view of the existing laws which made the Civil Code and 
the laws relating to marriage applicable to all persons 
G residing within the State of Goa. Sections 5 and 6 of the 
Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration) Act, 1962, indicate that 
the Central Government has the authority to extend 
enactments applicable to the rest of the country. In other 
words, even if it were to be held that it is the customary 
H law in Goa which would prevail over the personal law of 
VINISHA JITESH TOLANI @ MANMEET LAGHMANI v. 597_ 
JITESH KISHORE TOLAN! 
the parties, the same could not be a bar to the transfer 
A 
of the matter C'JUtside the State of Goa to any other State. 
The finding arrived at in *Monica Variato's case that even 
applying the principles of Private International Law, 
bearing in mind various personal laws in this country, 
even though the spouses are domiciled in Qoa in respect 
B 
of a marriage performed outside Goa but in any other 
State of the Union, they would be governed by their 
personal laws in so far as dissolution of marriage is 
concerned, is relevant. Notwithstanding tile fact that the 
marriage between the parties had been conduct~d in C 
Go
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.