Dismissed

Gauri S. Nabar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2011WP/13/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a criminal writ petition concerning child custody disputes arising from matrimonial discord. The Court recorded a settlement agreement between the petitioner and respondents, transferring custody of two minor sons to the petitioner, based on their mutual consent and the endorsement of involved family members.

What did the court decide?

Custody of two minor sons handed over to the petitioner; writ petition disposed of on terms of recorded settlement.

Gauri S. Nabar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

12.WP13-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.13 OF 2011

¶7

Mrs.Gauri S. Nabar. Vs.

¶8

..Petitioner.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and 6 others. ..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Shrikant Bhat, Advocate a/w. Ms.Chitra Phadke, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate a/w. Mr.Ajay Dongre, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶12

Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 12^TH JANUARY, 2011.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on Board.

¶17

P.S.I. of Kothrud Police Station Mr.Subhash Shahane has

¶18

produced the two minor children (1) Sanat Shrikrishna Nabar,

¶19

aged 3 years & 9 months and Sourav Shrikrishna Nabar, aged 1

¶20

¶21

12.WP13-11

¶22

year and 6 months, before us. Besides, the Petitioner and her father are present in Court. Similarly, Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are present in Court.

¶23

Respondent No.7 states that she has a valid Power of Attorney of her brother i.e. Respondent No.4 and has authority to represent him in the present proceedings as well. Considering the nature of dispute essentially arising out of the discord in matrimonial relation, we thought it appropriate to confer with the parties in the Chamber.

¶24

After due deliberation, the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.7(Power of Attorney of Respondent No.4)on behalf Respondent No.4 have agreed to amicably resolve all their contentious issues. Even the parents of Respondent No.4 and father of the Petitioner have endorsed the settlement terms that ought to be arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4. The parties have reduced the terms of settlement/minutes of order into writing by hand. The terms of settlement/minutes of order have been vetted and signed by the Petitioner as well as Respondent Nos.5 to 7 who are present in Court and by Respondent No.7 for and on behalf of Respondent No.4 as his Power of Attorney.

¶25

¶26

12.WP13-11

¶27

The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.7 was asked as to whether they have understood the significance and ramifications of the terms of settlement arrived at by them. Both the parties have reassured us that the terms of settlement/minutes of order, reduced into writing by them, are after due deliberation and are acceptable to all of them and even Respondent No.4 has been informed about the terms on telephone before executing the same on his behalf. The terms of settlement/minutes of order are taken on record and marked "X" for the sake of identification. As per the agreement reached between the parties, the custody of two minor sons born out of the wedlock of Petitioner and Respondent No.4 has been handed over to the Petitioner. The parties assured the Court that they will abide by the terms of settlement/minutes of order and take all consequential steps as may be necessary in that behalf to take the same to its logical end. The assurance given by the respective parties is accepted.

¶28

Accordingly, in view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the present Petition. The same is disposed of in the light of the settlement terms/minutes of order taken on record. Respondent No.7 assures to place the authenticated Power of

¶29

¶30

12.WP13-11

¶31

Attorney on record within one week from today. The same should

¶32

be filed in the Registry within one week from today.

¶33

Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶34

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

¶35

(A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Gauri S. Nabar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri S. Nabar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Somdatta Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Somdatta Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sitaram Sakhtu Chaurasia Vs Sharad Dalvi and Anr.

Tukaram Baburao Shinde and Anr. Vs Gruh Finance Limited and Anr.

Ajeet Shankarlal Bhatia Vs Dilip Mohandas Ramrakhyni and Ors.

Deepak Shevantilal Jhaveri Vs M/S. Alpha Exports and Ors.