Dear Sir,
There was a news and judgment related to below custody of child awarded by the Bombay High court. Though the name of the parties has been changed in the news but actual name of the parties are also available in other LCI forum as under which was provided by our great TAJOB sir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14427 OF 2012.
Mrs. Pooja Vishal Deshmukh...Petitioner.
vs.
Mr. Vishal Vilas Deshmukh...Respondent.
Mr. F.A. Perrira, for Petitioner.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA &
P. D. KODE, JJ.
(VACATION BENCH)
DATE : 21ST MAY, 2012.
P. C. :
Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2.
Stand over to 25th May 2012.
It is clarified that the order passed by the Family Court, Pune,
directing the Petitionermother to grant access of the minor child to
the Respondentfather is not stayed.
The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitionermother, on
instructions from the Petitionermother who is present in Court,
undertakes, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, to
comply with the order impugned herein by handing over custody of
the child to the Respondentfather in Family court No. 5, Pune on
22nd May 2012 at 4.00 p.m. The Advocate for the Petitioner shall
convey the order passed by this Court to the Respondentfather in
writing by today evening.
[ P. D. KODE, J.] [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14427 OF 2012
Mrs. Pooja Vishal Deshmukh ...Petitioner.
Vs.
Mr. Vishal Vilas Deshmukh ...Respondent.
Mr. F.A. Perriera for the Petitioner.
CORAM :
S.J.KATHAWALA AND
P.D. KODE,JJ.
(VACATION COURT)
DATE : 25TH MAY, 2012.
P.C.
Stand over to 11th June 2012.
2.
The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has already complied with the order passed by this Court dated 21st May 2012. However, he submits that the the respondent has not paid temporary alimony for the last 20 months and has also not paid maintenance of the child for the last 6 months.
3.
The Respondent is directed to appear before this Court on the adjourned date. If he fails to comply with the order passed by this Court, the Court shall be constrained to pass appropriate orders against him on the next date of hearing.
( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)
( P.D. KODE,J. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANY ONE CAN POST THE ABOVE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 11/06/2013 BECAUSE IT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WEBSITE ALSO OR I DID NOT FIND THE SAME .
Thanks to all
Kids cannot be deprived of either parent, says high court
MUMBAI: Children cannot be deprived of the company of either parent, said Bombay High Court on Monday while hearing wife's plea to stay a Family Court's order allowing her husband to take their son for summer holidays.
A vacation division bench of Justice S J Kathawalla and Justice P D Kode were hearing an appeal filed by Priya Kulkarni challenging the family court's May 9, 2012 order allowing her husband Suhas to take their son Rahul (6) for holidays between May 21- June 4, 2012. The judge also said noted that during interview Rahul expressed eagerness to spend time with his father. "The experience of the warring couples may be bad but it does not mean that the child should remain without the love and affection of the father," the judge said.
The couple married in May 2005. Their son was born a year later. Priya left the house in 2009 and filed cases under Sections 498 A (dowry) and 326 (causing grievous hurt) of Indian Penal Code with the police alleging that he beat her badly. She then moved the Pune FC for maintenance. In April 2009, Suhas was directed to pay Rs 11,000 jointly to her and Rahul.
Pointing out that Suhas has not complied with the maintenance order, Priya's advocate F A Pareira argued that Suhas is a criminal and had beaten her badly causing contusion on the frontal lobe of the head. He has criminal record and unless cleared of these cases he should not be allowed access to the child," said Pareira. He also said the court has orally stayed its order till May 30, 2012.
"How do you call him a hardcore criminal on the basis of these cases?" asked Justice Kathawalla. The judges also noted that no notice was served to Suhas to enable him to appear before HC. "You'll have to give access to the father. Children cannot be deprived of the company of either parent. As a father why should he not have access to the child?" asked Justice Kathawalla.
The judges said they were familiar with tactics used by couples to deprive either of access to child. "We know all the tricks that are used. You first comply with the order and give him access and then move this court," Justice Kathawalla added.
The judges said they find nothing wrong with the FC's order. They also warned that if there is no stay from the FC as claimed by Pareira, "we shall give access to the father for an entire one month." They directed Priya to hand Rahul to Suhas at the FC on Tuesday. They posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
(Names have been changed to protect identity)
