Disposed

Sumit Annil Arora v. Rashmi Sumit Arora

Bombay HC9 Apr 2014RPW/21/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench of J. G.S. Patel disposed of writ and review petitions as infructuous after respondent-complied partially with order. Directions given to parties to act before Family Court for vacation access; scope of previous order clarified.

What did the court decide?

Writ and review petitions disposed of as infructuous; parties directed to make vacation access arrangements before Family Court.

Sumit Annil Arora Vs Rashmi Sumit Arora — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

901-ASWP12183-13.DOC

¶2

Agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12183 OF 2013

¶4

WITH

¶5

REVIEW PETITION NO. 21 OF 2014

¶6

Sumit Annil Arora…Petitioner
Versus
Rashmi Sumit Arora…Respondent

¶7

Mr. Uday Prakash Warunjikar, i/by Mr. N.V. Kalantri, for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Rohaan Cama, i/by Ms. Sapna Rachure, for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 9th April 2014

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.It is heartening to hear from Mr. Cama and Mr. Warunjikar
that the respondent-mother’s visit to Lucknow, following the order
of 10th March 2014 has, apparently, been not only without incident,
but has been successful in every way that counts. The renewal of
the family’s bonds will take some tie. Both parties to this petition
will need to continue to work together in the interest of their son.
However, a small, yet important, beginning has been made.

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

901-ASWP12183-13.DOC

¶14

2.It is now for the parties to take appropriate steps before the
Family Court to make arrangements for vacation access. This is not
something that I can do in the present writ petition. This petition
has been extended beyond what could have been reasonably
expected.

¶15

3. It goes without saying that the arrangements made by the order of 10th March 2014 were limited to that weekend alone. Neither the order nor the arrangements made in it should be construed to mean that the respondent – mother is required at all times to take access to the minor only in Lucknow. All contentions of both parties are expressly left open.

¶16

4. With these observations, the writ petition as well as the review petition are disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶18

2 of 2

Sumit Annil Arora v. Rashmi Sumit Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Annil Arora v. Rashmi Sumit Arora

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

Jyoti Arjan Vaswani Vs T Official Liquidator of Mafatlal Engineering Industries Limited (in Liqn.)

Dignity Foundation, a Registered Public Charitable Trust Vs Vision India Events and Conferences Private Limited - U74999PN2001PTC016320

Vishal Trading Co. Proprietorship Firm of Mr. Manish Upadhyay Vs Aayush Tex Dye Private Limited - U171120MH2003PTC142430

Sumit Annil Arora Vs Rashmi Sumit Arora

The Indian Express Limited and Ors. Vs M.J. Akbar and Ors.

Nihar Construction Private Limited Vs Narendra Mohan Singh