Disposed

Pascol W. Carlos v. Macxi Vinnie Carlos Nee Macxi Vinnie Fernandes

Bombay HC10 Jul 2009CONP/29/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a contempt petition arising from a failure to file a mutual consent divorce petition per an undertaking, where parties introspected and agreed on a resolution involving maintenance payment and expeditious disposal of family court applications.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; maintenance arrears deposit direction given; expeditious disposal of family court applications directed; Show Cause Notice discharged.

Pascol W. Carlos Vs Macxi Vinnie Carlos Nee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2009 IN

¶4

M.J. SUIT NO. 1633 OF 1993

¶5

Pascol William Carlos ..Petitioner versus Macxi Vinnie Carlos nee Macxi Vinnie Fernandes ..Contemnor And Yunusbhai ..Co-Respondent

¶6

Mr. N. A. Gonsalves with Ms. Suvarna Telgote for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Seema Sarnaik for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. DATED : 10TH JULY, 2009.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Contempt Petition came to be instituted before this Court with a

¶11

grievance that though an undertaking was tendered before this Court in M.J. Suit No. 1633 of 1993 by which parties agreed that the marriage be

¶12

dissolved by mutual consent and that a Petition be filed for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court within four weeks, the Contemnor has consistently failed to abide by the undertaking.

¶13

¶14

At the hearing of the Contempt Petition, notice was issued to the contemnor. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the Contemnor submitted that the Contemnor had refrained from agreeing to the filing of a petition for divorce by mutual consent since the Petitioner had on his part failed to abide by the Order for the payment of interim maintenance.

¶15

Having regard to the nature of the grievance, the Court was of the view that it was desirable that parties should try and amicably resolve the dispute. The learned Advocates have with the assistance of the parties now informed the Court that parties have arrived at modalities for resolving the entire dispute. The Court is informed that the Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.52,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand) being the arrears of maintenance upto 10^th June 2009 before the Family Court within a period of two weeks from today. The aforesaid amount of Rs.52,000/- shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the Contemnor immediately on the execution and signing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. In order to obviate any controversy, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Contemnor have placed an agreed draft of a petition for dissolution by mutual consent, which has been duly initialed by the Advocates. The draft initialed by the learned Advocates is taken on record.

¶16

¶17

It has been agreed by the parties that a direction may be issued by this Court to the Family Court for the expeditious disposal of the application filed by the Contemnor for interim maintenance and for the return of articles. Having regard to the fact that parties have desired an expeditious resolution to the dispute, it would be appropriate to direct that the parties shall appear before the Family Court through their Advocates on 11^th August 2009 which is the next date of hearing. The Family Court is requested to dispose of the application for maintenance and for return of articles expeditiously and in any event within a period of six weeks thereafter. The Advocates for the parties and the parties who are present have agreed before the Court that no application for adjournment shall be made before the Family Court. In view of the fact that parties have now resolved the dispute, it is not necessary to keep the Contempt Petition pending. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

Show Cause Notice No. 807 of 2009 is discharged.

Pascol W. Carlos v. Macxi Vinnie Carlos Nee Macxi Vinnie Fernandes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pascol W. Carlos v. Macxi Vinnie Carlos Nee Macxi Vinnie Fernandes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pedder Johnson Finance Ltd. Vs Solar Farm-a-Chem Ltd.

Jeena and Co. Vs Zygo Flowers Ltd.

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Vs Ravindra N. Mhatre

Atul Patel Vs Smt. Jyotsna K. Mistry and Ors.

Smt. Ranjit Kaur Kohli Vs the City Survey Officer, Bandra

Shivaji Ramchandra Sawant Vs Dinesh Ramchandra Sawant and Ors.