Dismissed

Mr. K. N. Krishnamurthy v. Mrs. Kavita Krishnamurthy

Bombay HC11 Jan 2013WP/175/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a Family Court order granting birthday access and preventing interim applications. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek further birthday access directions from the trial court instead of filing a writ, and upheld the procedural restrictions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to apply to the trial court for further directions on birthday access.

Mr. K. N. Krishnamurthy Vs Mrs. Kavita… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

mnm

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2013

¶5

K.N. Krishnamurthy ...Petitioner

Vs.

Kavita Krishnamurthy

...Respondent

Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for Petitioner i/b. Shilpa A. Joshi

¶10

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 11^TH JANUARY, 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Mumbai has passed an order on 21^st December, 2012 relating to access during Christmas vacation, birthday access and directions in the petition, which is challenged.

¶13

Notice is given to the respondent, which is received by the respondent on 8^th January, 2013. Despite notice the respondent is absent.

¶14

The first part of the order is not challenged. For the order relating to birthday access it is stated that further directions were to be passed specifying the time of the access.

¶15

The last part of the order is challenged, which prevents the

¶16

¶17

parties from making interim applications, but to proceed with the final hearing. The order is absolutely correct. The Petition is of 2009. It has to be heard and finally disposed of. It is counterproductive for the parties go on making applications after applications and not getting the main petition disposed of. The order is in the interest of both the parties, more specially for the parties with merits. The order does not require to be set aside, but in fact requires to be reiterated.

¶18

So far as the birthday access is concerned, if further directions are required, the petitioner is not required to file a Writ Petition and challenge the birthday access. The petitioner must apply for those directions before the trial Court itself. The directions would be passed so soon as they are applied for. There is no need for challenge of any order.

¶19

I am told that earlier birthday accesses have been given. Hence, this year's birthday access would be on the same lines.

¶20

With these directions the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Mr. K. N. Krishnamurthy v. Mrs. Kavita Krishnamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. K. N. Krishnamurthy v. Mrs. Kavita Krishnamurthy

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

Dr. Jasmine Ajayan Vs Swastik Realtors and 5 Ors.

Sayyed Mushtaque Vs Abdul Rahim Hamid Khan and Ors.

Chandrashekhar Deju Amin Vs Sunanda Chandrashekhar Amin

Rhea Manish Jadhwani Vs Manish Gopal Jadhwani and Anr.

Pinky Dhiren Patel Vs Dhiren Thakor Patel

Sayeed Ali S/O Haji Mohd Rafique Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.