The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking custody of a child. The court observed that the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding their approach to the Family Court and their failure to explain steps taken for custody. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
(G.C.P.)J 455 (5,00,000)-11.2001) Spl-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.,78e
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.531 OF 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders
of Coram, appearances, Court’s
order or directions and
Registrar’s order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.K.Sharma for the petitioner.
Shri D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
&
P.V.KAKADE, JJ
DATED: 1st March, 2005.
P.C.
. Inspite of the repeated query from
the Court as to whether the petitioner had
taken necessary steps to obtain custody of
the child by approaching the Family Court,
the learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner is reluctant to reply in relation
to the said query. The fact that the
petitioner had approached the Family Court
and the Family Court had actually passed the
order for production of the child was
suppressed in the petition. Apart from the
suppression of the said fact, there is no
- 2 -
case made out for the grant of relief prayed
for, and suppression of material facts would
also justify dismissal of the petition in
limine. The petition is accordingly
rejected.
(R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )
(P.V.KAKADE, J )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's reluctance to reply regarding steps taken to obtain custody and the suppression of the fact that they approached the Family Court justify dismissal of the petition.
The Petitioner
The Respondents
R.M.S. Khandeparkar
P.V. Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court