Petitioner challenged the Family Court's order denying him interim custody of his minor child due to the child's medical condition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the Family Court justified in denying custody to the father for caretaking reasons.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
wp583-13.order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 583 of 2013
Narendra Ramaji Jambhulakr
Vs.
Pranali Narendra Jambhulkar.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr. A.M. Sudame, counsel for petitioner.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 4 th February, 2013.
By this petition, the petition impugns an order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur on 9.11.2012, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for interim custody of his minor child. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 29.10.2007 and a child named Akshansh was born on 4.10.2009. The petitioner filed a petition for custody of the child. Along with the said petition, an application was filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the child. The Family Court, however, by the impugned order dated 9.11.2012 rejected the application.
On hearing the leaned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Family Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Various documents were filed by the respondent-wife on record to show that the minor child was suffering from Hypo-chromic with mild anisocytosis. It was also clear from the documents that there was a rash over the face of the child. The child was only three years old. The Family Court rightly found that the small child required the care of his mother and it was not possible to grant interim
wp583-13.order
custody of the child to his father. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Hirekhan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's order rejecting the father's application for interim custody of his 3-year-old child on medical grounds.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narendra Ramaji Jambhulakr
Pranali Narendra Jambhulkar
Vasanti A. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
