Disposed

Rohini Amol Shirsatha v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2017WP/3695/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court was approached for the release of the petitioner's minor son currently in the custody of his father. The court declined to act as a matrimonial court to resolve conflicting versions regarding custody and physical safety, instead recording that no harm is caused to the child and recording that the father is legally required to return the child, inherited a clarifying order regarding

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a clarification that the petitioner can resort to all legal remedies available to seek custody of the child. The court acknowledged the father is required to return t

Rohini Amol Shirsatha Vs the State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

vikrant 1/3 917-CriWP-3695-2017.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3695 OF 2017

¶4

Mrs. Rohini Amol Shirsath ... Petitioner Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. S. K. Farkate for the Petitioner. Ms. S. V. Sonawane, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde i/b. ERGO Juris for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2017.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This Petition seeks release of the petitioner's son Om.

¶11

The petitioner's son is in the custody of none other than the 2^nd respondent.

¶12

From a bare perusal of the Petition and the annexures, it is evident that the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent had a relationship akin to marriage and from that relationship, this child (male) Om was born. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was snatched from her lawful custody by the 2^nd respondent and taken away. The petitioner does not reside in the matrimonial home, nor is she ready and willing presently to go back to the

¶13

vikrant 2/3 917-CriWP-3695-2017.odt

¶14

same. She says she fears physical assaults, beating and cruelty at the hands of the 2^nd respondent, but is keen to have the child with her as that child requires continued attention and that would be provided by the mother only.

¶15

On the earlier occasions, and by keeping this matter in Chamber, we had impressed upon the parties that it is in their interest that they resume cohabitation and give the relationship a chance to normalize itself. Several suggestions were given including to shift out of the matrimonial home and reside at Nashik and when the petitioner is in the police service, her seniors can be requested to post her at Nashik city so that the child will be with her and equally the husband and wife will have an opportunity to normalize their relationship. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states on instructions that presently the petitioner is not ready and willing to reside out of Mumbai and in Nashik City alongwith the 2^nd Respondent.

¶16

The 2^nd respondent has his own version about the whole episode and matter resulting in the child being taken away by him allegedly. Such factual versions cannot be probed and investigated further in our limited jurisdiction.

¶17

We can only keep alive all the legal remedies as are available to the petitioner so that she can avail of the same. By clarifying that we have expressed no opinion on the rival

¶18

vikrant 3/3 917-CriWP-3695-2017.odt

¶19

contentions, but as it is difficult to resolve a matrimonial dispute in our limited jurisdiction, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a clarification that the petitioner can resort to all the legal remedies available to her to seek custody of the child. We pass this order for we have ascertained from the presence of the 2^nd respondent and the child that no harm is caused at least to the child and he is safe. All the more, therefore, the petitioner can seek custody of this child from the father in the light of the child's age and he being a minor below even five years. The Petition is disposed of with the above clarification.

¶20

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Rohini Amol Shirsatha v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohini Amol Shirsatha v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Suman Sudhakar Jadhav Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Mbh Enterprises Vs the Union of India through the Revenue Secretary and 4 Ors.

Prashant Shashikant Kittur Vs Kairoos Minoo Bhaya and 6 Others

Inox Leisure Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudhakar Shankarrao Chapke Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (Msedcl), through Managing Director and Anr.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Ihsedu Agrochem Pvt. Ltd.