Dismissed

Amandeep Randhawa v. Jehangir Salim Abdulla

Bombay HC23 Aug 2018WP/8867/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench held that the writ petition challenging a Family Court order granting the respondent husband summer vacation access to children becomes infructuous once the order is implemented. The petition was disposed of as infructuous with liberty to challenge a separate 'No-WS' order. The Section 9A jurisdiction issue is to be proceeded under Order XIV CPC.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as infructuous reserving liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the 'No-WS' order by 3rd September 2018.

Amandeep Randhawa Vs Jehangir Salim Abdulla — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

501.WP.8867-18.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition NO. 8867 OF 2018 With Civil Application No.1833 of 2018 In

¶4

Writ Petition NO. 8867 OF 2018

¶5

Amandeep Randhawa ...Petitioner Versus

¶6

Jehangir Salim Abdulla ...Respondent

¶7

Ms.Firdous Moosa a/w. Mr. Anuj Dave i/b. Probus Legal, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms.Shirin Merchant i/b. Mr. Hitesh P. Vyas, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 23^rd AUGUST, 2018

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Not on board. At the request of Ms.Moosa taken up for admission.

¶13

Heard Ms.Firdous Moosa, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶14

Ms.Shirin Merchant, learned counsel for the respondent, at length.

¶15

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/wife has challenged the order dated 20.7.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai below Exhibit-29 in Petition No.D.98/2016. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application made by the respondent/husband and directed the petitioner/wife to provide Summer Vacation access to children Jaseer and Mehr respectively to the respondent/husband from 28.7.2018 to 12.8.2018. It is common ground between the parties that in pursuance of the impugned order, the

1 / 3

501.WP.8867-18.doc

respondent/husband is given access between 28.7.2018 and 12.8.2018. In view thereof, the challenge in this Petition does not survive.

¶20

Ms. Moosa submitted that the learned trial Judge, without any application being filed by the respondent/husband, has passed 'No-WS' order. She submits that the petitioner/wife is resident of California and assures that on or before 3^rd September, 2018, she will file Writ Petition challenging the order of 'No-WS' passed against the petitioner/wife along with verified written statement of the petitioner/wife. She further submits that the learned trial Judge has fixed the matter on 4^th September, 2018.

¶21

Ms. Moosa also invited my attention to paragraph-7 of the impugned order which records that this Court by order dated 27.3.2018 in W.P. No.3037/2018 has directed the trial Court to decide the application filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 9A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.) for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. It is common ground between the parties that the issue of 9-A is not decided. In view of Maharashtra Ordinance No.XVIII of 2018 and in particular Clause (3) thereof, as the preliminary issue under Section 9A is pending on the date of commencement of the Ordinance on 27.6.2018, the same shall be treated as an issue framed under Order XIV of C.P.C. and same shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶22

As the impugned order is implemented, this Petition is disposed of as infructuous reserving liberty to the petitioner/wife to institute fresh Writ Petition challenging the 'No-WS' order. Same shall be filed on or before 3^rd

2 / 3

501.WP.8867-18.doc

September, 2018. Ms. Merchant states that she will accept the service of the proposed Petition.

¶27

As the learned trial Judge has fixed the matter on 4^th September, 2018, same shall be adjourned to 11^th September, 2018. It is made clear that in case fresh Writ Petition is not filed along with verified written statement of the petitioner/wife, the trial Court will not be precluded from proceeding with the trial from 4^th September, 2018.

¶28

In view of disposal of main Writ Petition, Civil Application No.1833/2018 does not survive and same is also disposed of.

¶29

All concerned parties, including the Family Court, to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. Order accordingly.

¶30

PradipkumarPrakashraoDeshmane Digitally signedby PradipkumarPrakashraoDeshmaneDate: 2018.08.2418:25:33 +0500

¶31

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶32

Deshmane (PS)

¶33

3 / 3

Amandeep Randhawa v. Jehangir Salim Abdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Randhawa v. Jehangir Salim Abdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulochana Gajana Shelke and Ors. Vs Smt Laxmi W/O Pandurang Laxman Shelke and Ors.

M/S. East India Paper Company Vs Barun Investment Co. (Pvt) Limited and Ors.

M/S. East India Paper Company Vs M/S. C. Chainani and Company and Anr.

Shri. Jaganath Mahadeo Galande Vs Smt. Ranjana Madhukar Holkar

Shweta Anil Marathe Vs Anil Gokul Marathe and Anr.

Shri. Rajmani Benimadhav Malviya (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Representatives Vs Smt. Ramdulari C. Mishra (Since Decd.) and Ors.