Disposed

Mr. Aziz Vazir Khan v. Smt. Yasmeen Mohammed Hussain Shaikh

Bombay HC7 May 2014CAM/166/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order denies a petition for temporary custody during summer vacation for a 9-year-old child. The court cites the child's tender age and the father cohabiting with a second wife as reasons against granting custody, instead permitting supervised visitation.

What did the court decide?

Temporary custody during summer vacation was denied; instead, supervised weekly meetings were permitted.

Mr. Aziz Vazir Khan Vs Smt. Yasmeen Mohammed… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

15-CAM-166-14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2014 IN

¶5

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2009

¶6

Mr. Aziz Vazir Khan	..	Applicant/(Ori. Respondent)
In the matter between :
Smt. Yasmeen Mohammed Hussain Shaikh vs.	..	Appellant
Mr. Aziz Vazir Khan	..	Respondent

¶7

Mr. H. K. Sayyed for Applicant / Ori. Respondent. Mr. A. A. Siddiqui for Respondent / Orig. Appellant.

¶8

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 7TH MAY 2014

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant – husband and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – wife.

¶11

2] This Application has been filed in the pending Family Court

¶12

Appeal preferred by the wife. The challenge in the Appeal is to judgment and order dated 09.10.2009 by which the wife was directed to hand over permanent custody of the son to the husband.

1/3

skc

15-CAM-166-14

3] During the pendency of the Appeal, the said order is not

¶17

operating and there is an interim arrangement between the parties. Interim arrangement is that the husband is allowed to meet the child on 1^st and 3^rd Saturday of every month from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. at Child Care Centre, 9^th floor in the Family Court at Pune.

¶18

4] By the present Application, the husband has pointed out that the minor son whose age is 9 years has Summer Vacation from 20.04.2014 till 15.06.2014. He is seeking temporary custody of the minor son during the Summer Vacation.

¶19

5] We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The minor son is of tender age. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the husband has a second wife and now there is a child. Considering all these factors and especially tender age of the minor son, it is not possible to accede to the prayer of the husband to grant temporary custody.

¶20

6] The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant – husband submits that the Applicant - husband may be permitted to take the child to his residence in the morning and the husband will bring back the child in the evening at the house of the wife. The learned

2/3

skc

15-CAM-166-14

counsel representing the wife submits that the minor son may not be comfortable as the husband is residing with the second wife.

¶25

7] Therefore, we propose to allow the Applicant – husband to

¶26

meet the minor child on every Thursday till 15.06.2014 between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. at the Child Care Centre of the Family Court at Pune. Order accordingly. We make it clear that the Counsellor attached to the Child Care Centre of the Family Court at Pune will remain present at that time. On every Thursday, the husband shall pay travelling expenses of Rs.100/- to the wife.

¶27

8] This order will be in addition to the interim arrangement between the parties which is recorded in the Order dated 21.07.2007 (Exhibit 'A' to this Application).

¶28

9] The Application is disposed of in above terms.

¶29

10] Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this Order.

¶30

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶31

Chandka

¶32

3/3

Mr. Aziz Vazir Khan v. Smt. Yasmeen Mohammed Hussain Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Aziz Vazir Khan v. Smt. Yasmeen Mohammed Hussain Shaikh

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

Mrs. Vaishali Dinesh Chaudhari Vs Mr. Dinesh Tukaram Chaudhari

Shri. Prakash Banarsidas Gupta (Since Decd) through Lrs Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Pcs Technology Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Jyotiram Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Jyotiram Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.