Remanded

Shri. Jose Marcel Dias Rep. through His Attorney Holder Mr. Janardhan Dongrikar v. Smt. Lourdina D'Souza @ Diana D'Souza

Bombay HC26 Sept 2013WP/530/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single judge oral judgment where the court set aside an impugned order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rejected the petitioner's application for custody of his minor daughter, allegedly ignoring letters from the Passport Officer. The High Court held that the adjudication was flawed and remanded the matter for de novo consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 20th August 2011 was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration within three months.

Shri. Jose Marcel Dias Rep. through His… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2013

¶4

Shri Jose Marcel Dias, S/o Mr. Nepomonciano Dias, 55 years of age, Indian National, H. No. 389, Mercury Waddo, Agassaim – Goa. Represented herein through His Attorney Holder Mr. Janardhan Dongrikar, Major of age r/o H. No.681/1, Agasaim Market, Agasaim Goa. …... Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Smt. Lourdina D'Souza alias, Diana D'Souza d/o Gabrial D'Souza aged 44 years, Housewife R/O H. No. not known, Malim, Betim, Bardez, Goa. …... Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Anthony J. D'Silva, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE; 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2013.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶10

Rule.

¶11

The Order dated 20^th August, 2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, by which order, the application

¶12

¶13

filed by the petitioner for custody of his minor daughter Ms. Manisha Eugenia Dias came to be rejected. It appears that the petitioner had applied for a passport for his minor daughter. The Passport Officer, Panaji, by his letter dated 28/02/2011 addressed to daughter Manisha called upon her to “Furnish custody of the applicant & decree of Divorce from the Court”.

¶14

Thereafter, by further letter dated 02/05/2011, the Passport Officer asked the applicant Manisha to “Furnish custody Order from Court”. The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to move the Court for seeking an order of custody in respect of his daughter. The Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that under Article 21 of the Family Laws it is provided that the custody is to be entrusted to the spouse in whose favour divorce is granted and since it is the case of the applicant that the custody of the daughter is with him and he is looking after his children, there is no question of entrusting the custody of the daughter by the Court. The Trial Court has also rejected it on the ground that the letter from the Passport Authority was not produced by the petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in fact both letters addressed by the Passport Officer to Manisha have been produced

¶15

¶16

before the Trial Court. An averment by way of Ground- VIII also finds place in the above petition. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to on what basis the Trial Court has made an observation that the petitioner has not produced the letter from the Passport Officer. Since the adjudication made by the Trial Court is without taking into consideration the letters of the Passport Officer, in my view, the impugned order is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Trial Court for a de novo consideration of the application filed by the petitioner for a custody order. The same to be done by the Trial Court within a period of three months from date.

¶17

No notice has been issued to the respondent in view of the nature of the direction to be passed, as also in view of the fact that the respondent has not appeared before the Trial Court.

¶18

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid

¶19

terms.

¶20

R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶21

AP/-

Shri. Jose Marcel Dias Rep. through His Attorney Holder Mr. Janardhan Dongrikar v. Smt. Lourdina D'Souza @ Diana D'Souza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Jose Marcel Dias Rep. through His Attorney Holder Mr. Janardhan Dongrikar v. Smt. Lourdina D'Souza @ Diana D'Souza

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

Mr. Gunesh Gopinath Desai and Anr. Vs Sociedade Agricola Dos Gaoncares De Cuncolim E Veroda Rep. by President, Moducora B. N. Dessai

M/S . Verlekar Real Estate through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Verlekar Vs M/S. V.K. Dhamaskar and Associates through Its Managing Partner, Mr. Sudhir v. Dhamaskar

Shri Jose Desa Vs Smt. Yvonne Soares and 4 Ors.

Shri. Gunu Narayan Vasta and 5 Ors., Vs Smt. Usha Anant Lad @ Usha C. Pai and 2 Ors.

Smt. Hirawati Vassudev Morajkar Vs Shri Prakash Rawal and Anr.

Shri. Placido Rodrigues through His Consti. Atto. Shri. Edwin Rodgrigues and Anr., Vs Smt. Margarida Antonio D'Souza @ Janelin D'Souza and 2 Ors.