This short order dismissed an appeal where the appellant had consented to an order requiring the respondent to provide travel details for children's vacation to the USA, confirming their return to India.
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable; the connected Notice of Motion was disposed of.
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.
k
1/3
pro 904 app 271.16 with nmal 2192.16 in appl os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (L) NO.271 OF 2016
Mr. Sam Shapoor Irani V/s
….. Appellant
Mrs. Naomi Sam Irani ….. Respondent
WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.2192 OF 2016 IN APPEAL NO.271 OF 2015
Mr. Sam Shapoor Irani ….. Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mr. Sam Shapoor Irani ….. Appellant V/s Mrs. Naomi Sam Irani ….. Respondent
Ms. Sanober Nonavati for the Applicant/Appellant.
Ms. Hetal Master i/b M/s. Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for the Respondent.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 28 JULY 2016
ORDER:
2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. The paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
said order read thus:
1/3
k
2/3
pro 904 app 271.16 with nmal 2192.16 in appl os.doc
“4. The second application is in relation to the Defendant’s proposed or imminent vacation with the children to the USA. Ms. Nanavati shows me certain portions of the Plaint in which serious of allegations were made against the Defendant. The Defendant will, of course, need to address these. In fairness, Ms. Nanavati does not suggest that the children’s vacations should be cancelled or even cut short. She only seeks a confirmation and a statement from the Defendant that the children will be returned to the jurisdiction of this Court and will come back to India to resume their schooling at Panchgani after their vacation. Mr. Ankhad on instructions unhesitatingly makes that statement. He also points out that the Defendant is herself a full-time employee in school at Panchgani. There is no question that she will have to return to India with the children at the end of the vacation. He confirms that the dates of travel are from 1st August 2016 to 6th September 2016. These statements are noted and accepted as an undertakings to the Court.
5. Mr. Ankhad also states that the travel particulars, including details of the ticket, the return ticket and the itinerary as also particulars of about the accommodation and visit in America will be given to the Court in a sealed cover by next Friday on 29th July 2016.”
3 Going by what is recorded in paragraph 4, it is crystal clear that the Appellant has consented to the arrangement recorded in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned order. Therefore, this Appeal is not maintainable
2/3
k
3/3
pro 904 app 271.16 with nmal 2192.16 in appl os.doc
and is dismissed as such. Pending Notice of Motion (L) No.2192 of 2016
does not survive and the same is disposed of.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)
katkam
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal is maintainable given the appellant's consent to the undertakings regarding children's travel to the USA.
Mr. Sam Shapoor Irani
Mrs. Naomi Sam Irani
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
