XFA-F-3239-2024.docx Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2025 RANJITA PRASHANT SABNIS .... Applicant. V/s. PRASHANT PRAKASH SABNIS .... Respondents. Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. K. Keswani with Mr. Sachin Raul, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES, J. RESERVED ON : 28TH MAY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 23RD JULY,2025 ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Advocate for the Applicant-wife and Mr. S. K. Keswani with Mr. Sachin Raul, learned Advocates for the Respondent-husband. 2. his Application has been iled to seek the transfer of Matrimonial Petition No.A/1547/2024 seeking divorce, instituted by the Respondent-husband, pending before Judge 7, Mumbai Suburban, Family Court, to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. 2025:BHC-GOA:1297 XFA-F-3239-2024.docx SUBMISSIONS page 2 of 9 3. Ms. Desai contends that the Applicant-wife seeks a transfer of the proceedings on the grounds that participating in the proceedings at Mumbai would result in undue inancial hardship to her. She further asserts that, owing to an alleged history of sexual harassment inlicted upon her by her father-in-law, she harbours apprehensions regarding her personal safety should she be required to travel alone to Mumbai. he Applicant-wife has averred in her petition that a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act is currently pending before a Court in Goa. She contends that transferring the matrimonial petition to Goa would be appropriate. However, at the time of iling this application, no additional details or evidence concerning the said Domestic Violence proceeding were brought on record. 4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant-wife places reliance on the following judgments to support her contentions: i. Shreya w/o Prashant Agale v. Prashant s/o Prakash Agale, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 933. ii. Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, 2001 SCC OnLine SC 470 iii. Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005 SCC OnLine SC 346. iv. Simi Mehrotra v. Anil Mehrotra, 2002 SCC OnLine SC 702. Page 2 of 9 XFA-F-3239-2024.docx v. Irene Blanch Khera v. Glenn John Vijay Amrose Sousa Tikclo, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1545. vi. Aditi Satish Khadse v. Karan Khadse, Transfer Application 1 of 2022, decided on 08.06.2022, High Court of Bombay at Goa. 5. Mr. Keswani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-husband, refuted the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against the Respondent’s father. It was submitted that the Applicant is an educated and well-travelled individual, presently engaged in the pursuit of her Doctorate degree. Further, it was contended that the transfer of the matrimonial petition to Goa would impose an unreasonable inancial burden and cause undue hardship to the Respondent-husband, particularly in light of his father’s medical condition, who is sufering from cancer and is undergoing treatment in Mumbai. Mr. Keswani also submitted that the Applicant has failed to furnish the particulars of the Domestic Violence proceedings, purportedly instituted by her against the Respondent, as alleged in her Petition, which constitutes suppression of material facts. In support of his submissions, Learned Advocate for the Respondent places reliance on the following judgments: i. Preeti Sharma v Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 535. ii. he Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 556. XFA-F-3239-2024.docx 6. he Respondent-Husband has submitted an aidavit-in-reply dated 28.01.2025, wherein he denies the allegations that the father of the Respondent has indulged in acts of sexual harassment against the Applicant-Wife. He further avers his willingness to bear the costs associated with travel and accommodation expenses incurred by the Applicant-Wife in attending the proceedings before the Family Court at Bandra (Mumbai Suburban). Additionally, he states that he has not received any particulars or details pertaining to the Domestic Violence petition purportedly instituted by the Applicant-Wife in Goa. 7. During the course of hearing this petition on 31.01.2025, on a speciic query of this Court as to the details of the case under the Domestic Violence Act iled before a Court in the State of Goa, averred in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petition, the learned Advocate for the Applicant sought an adjournment to ile an aidavit of an Applicant. One of the grounds which formed the basis for seeking transfer of the Matrimonial Petition at the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai was that the Applicant had iled a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, which was pending before a Court in Goa. It is on this basis that the Applicant sought transfer of the Mumbai Matrimonial Petition iled by the Respondent, in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa. 8. It further transpired that the averments contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 were false, as no Domestic Violence case had been iled by the XFA-F-3239-2024.docx Applicant in Goa prior to 21.11.2024, when this petition was iled before this Court. he Domestic Violence case was, in fact, iled by the Applicant only on 27.02.2025, a day before this Court was to hear the petition on 28.02.2025. No copies of the Domestic Violence petition were produced before this Court and instead the Applicant iled an aidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply of the Respondent on 04.03.2025, submitting therein at paragraph 9 that she had instructed her legal counsel to omit any mention of the Domestic Violence (DV) proceedings from the pleadings in her petition, as she intended to reconcile and resume her matrimonial relationship with the Respondent. She further contended in the rejoinder that the reference to the Domestic Violence proceedings inadvertently remained in the pleadings due to oversight. Additionally, she states that it was only upon becoming aware that the settlement negotiations before the Family Court at Bandra (Mumbai Suburban) had been unsuccessful that she was compelled to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, bearing No. PWDVA/3/2025, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa on 27.02.2025. She states to have also iled a Written Statement before the Family Court at Bandra (Mumbai Suburban). 9. he written statement in the Bandra Court came to be e-iled only on 26.02.2025, after which, on the very next day, the Domestic Violence case was iled before the JMFC, Mapusa, Goa, and then this petition was partly heard on 28.02.2025, after which time was sought to ile XFA-F-3239-2024.docx an aidavit, which came on record only on 04.03.2025. Clearly, therefore, the ground sought to be made out in the transfer application, for transfer of the Matrimonial Petition from Mumbai, to be heard along with the Domestic Violence case, which was supposedly already iled, was not available to the Applicant, and the attempt to transfer the case was obviously on the basis of incorrect and false averments. 10.he Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma reported in (1995) 1 SCC 421, was deciding an application for transfer of a matrimonial petition, wherein the husband had iled a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings. he Court observed as follows, holding the Husband guilty of contempt of Court: “1. he stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial irmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, delects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. * * * 14. he legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to XFA-F-3239-2024.docx defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. his would deinitely be so if a fabricated documents is iled with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.” 11.In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, it was observed by this Court: "39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court." 12.In Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 INSC 1073 the Supreme Court made the following observations: XFA-F-3239-2024.docx “14. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an oicer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated Senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District Courts. hough it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.” 13.From a bare perusal of the pleadings in the present application, it is amply clear that the grounds agitated to make a case for transfer were false and factually not available to the Applicant as on the date of iling of the petition. he Applicant has indulged in clear acts of suppression of fact and an attempt to mislead the Court into believing that there was a pending Domestic Violence case at Mapusa, Goa, for which reason the Matrimonial Case was sought to be transferred and he heard by the same Court, as was averred in paragraph 14 of the petition. he judgments referred to by me in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 above squarely apply to the facts of the present case, disentitling the Applicant to any relief from this Court, much less an order of transfer of the petition pending at Mumbai to a Court in Goa. Page 8 of 9 XFA-F-3239-2024.docx 14.Consequently, the petition stands dismissed at the threshold with costs of Rs.10,000/-. VALMIKI MENEZES,J. Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 23/07/2025 18:42:15