Dismissed

Behroze Neville Pithawalla v. Neville Mehernosh Pithawalla

Bombay HC6 Aug 2015NMSP/7/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for permanent custody and modification of access regarding a minor daughter, the Court, after interviewing the 12-year-old minor, rejected the request for overnight access and custody, respecting the child's wish to remain with her mother. The Court also addressed the issue of school reports and the expunction of medical records.

What did the court decide?

Requests for custody and modification of access order rejected; request to expunge medical report denied; access to school reports granted within seven days.

Behroze Neville Pithawalla Vs Neville… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

902-NMSP-7-15.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 7 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

PARSI SUIT NO. 33 OF 2008

¶6

Behroze Neville Pithawalla…Plaintiff
Versus
Neville Mehernosh Pithawalla…Defendant

¶7

Ms. A. S. Khushrushahi, for the Plaintiff.
Ms. Dipti Kale, a/w Amit Karkhanis, Suparna Holamagi, i/b M/s.
Kay Legal & Associates, for the Applicant/Defendant.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 6th August 2015

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.This is the Defendant’s Notice of Motion seeking firstly
permanent custody of the parties’ minor daughter Zia, who is today
12 years old; and secondly, and in alternative, for a modification of
an earlier order dated 13th July 2012, by which access was granted
to the Defendant, so as to now allow the Defendant overnight
access to the minor daughter. There is also a request in the Motion
itself that the minor be interviewed by the Court. The next prayer,
for access in June 2015, does not survive today. There are also

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

902-NMSP-7-15.DOC

¶13

prayers for temporary custody and in the alternative, a modification
of the access order. The final two prayers are a request that the
Defendant be given the minor daughter’s school progress updates,
and that the medical opinion of one Dr. Zirak be expunged from the
record.

¶14

2.By consent of parties, I met the minor Zia myself on 30th
July 2015 in Chambers. The parties were not allowed to be present
at that time. I found Zia to be an extremely bright, articulate and
confident young lady. She seemed happy and settled and, I was glad
to note, seemed to have come to terms with the fact that her parents
were embroiled in a matrimonial dispute in this Court. She
certainly displayed no stress or anxiety on that count. She spoke her
mind freely and without fear. I got no sense that she had in any way
being tutored.

¶15

3.Based on my conversation with her, it is not possible to grant
the Defendant-father overnight access or to enlarge the present
order of access in his favour. Zia herself made it abundantly clear
that this was not her wish, for the present. In fact, she candidly said
that as and when she was agreeable to overnight access, she would
ask her mother to convey this to the Court. I must respect her
wishes in this regard. Her interests are paramount and must be
respected. I do not believe that it is in her interest to compel her to
do something that she is, by her own telling of it, presently
unwilling to do.

¶16

4.During the conversation that I had with Zia, she did made
one request. She said that whenever she is with her friends and

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

902-NMSP-7-15.DOC

¶19

schoolmates, her father, the Defendant, repeatedly makes mention
of these Court proceedings. This causes her a very great deal of
embarrassment among her friends and schoolmates and makes her
uncomfortable (her exact phrase was, “that is so uncool.”) Her
feelings in this behalf must also be respected. Therefore: neither of
the parties is to talk about these Court proceedings when Zia is with
her friends and schoolmates either in school or outside. Both
parents must respect and have regard for Zia’s own dignity and
sense of self worth.

¶20

5. The requests for custody both temporary and permanent are rejected. So is the application for a modification of the access order.

¶21

6.It is not at present possible to expunge any medical report
that forms of the Court records.

¶22

7. This leaves only question of providing Defendant with copies of Zia’s school progress reports. Ms. Khurshrushahi, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff, states that these will be provided within a period of seven days on the reports being received from the school.

¶23

8.The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms. There
will be no order as to costs.

¶24

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶25

3 of 3

Behroze Neville Pithawalla v. Neville Mehernosh Pithawalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Behroze Neville Pithawalla v. Neville Mehernosh Pithawalla

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

Seacrust Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Chandru L Raheja and 12 Ors.

Darius Kaikhushroo Soonawalla Vs Fredy Peshotan Khambata

Papati Jaipal Nadar Vs Jaipal Sudalaiyandi Nadar (Deceased)

Mig(Bandra) Realtors and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Middle Income Group Co-Operative Housing Soc Ltd. and 8 Ors.

The Trustees of B.D. Petit Parsee General Hospital Vs the Administrator General, Maharashtra State

Neela Vilas Shinde Vs Geeta Patel D'Souza and 4 Ors.