Dismissed

Satishchandra Purshottam Kale v. Anjusha Satishchandra Kale

Bombay HC23 Mar 2021WP/10807/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner husband challenged Family Court order rejecting his application for breach of access order to children. Court directed Family Court to decide main divorce and custody petition within six months. Petitioner withdrew writ petition in view of court direction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Family Court directed to decide main petition within six months.

Satishchandra Purshottam Kale Vs Anjusha… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

28.wp.10807-19.doc

¶2

Bhogale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10807 OF 2019

¶5

Satishchandra Purshottam Kale .. Petitioner vs.

¶6

Anjusha Satishchandra Kale .. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Hitesh P. Vyas for the Petitioner.

¶8

Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date:2021.03.23 17:45:31 +0530

¶9

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 23, 2021

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶12

In this Petition the Petitioner-husband has challenged the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Family Court at Bandra rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.177 of 2016. The said application was fled by the Petitioner-husband for breach of the order granting access of the children.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the main Petition for divorce and custody is presently being heard by the Family Court and the Petitioner at present is under crossexamination. In this view of the matter he submits that if the proceedings before the Family Court is expedited, he will not

¶14

1/2

¶15

28.wp.10807-19.doc

¶16

press the Petition. The proceedings for divorce are initiated in the year 2014. The Petitioner is alleging the breach of the order passed by the Family Court granting access to the children. By the impugned order the Family Court has rejected the Application on the ground that the Application did not contain materials regarding ingredients of the breach alleged. Be that as it may, as the recording of evidence has started and considering that the Petitioner is alleging breach of the order granting access, instead of issuing notice, I deem it appropriate to request the Family Court to decide the Petition No.A-2009 of 2014 itself fnally preferably within a period of six months from today. The Petitioner-husband undertakes to co-operate with the Family Court and it is also expected that the Respondent-wife cooperates. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner does not press this Petition.

¶17

4. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

2/2

Satishchandra Purshottam Kale v. Anjusha Satishchandra Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satishchandra Purshottam Kale v. Anjusha Satishchandra Kale

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

Ramchandra Mahadeo Sawant and Anr. Vs Narayan Sakharam Parab and Ors.

Mr. Chetan Jaganath Dangat Vs Sou. Gitali Chetan Dangat

Vinay Pande and Ors. Vs Satyanarayan Nandkishore Pande and Ors.

Smt. Mona Atul Patel through Her Poa Holder Vs the State Govt. of Mah. through Its Honble Revenue Minister and Ors.

Late Krishnaji Pannaji (Since Decd.) through Lrs. through Poa Vs Mr. Brain Stanley Rodricks and Ors.

Mr. Kalyani a. K. a. Kalyanppa Chikirppa Shivgunde Vs Mrs. Minakashi Kalyani a. K. a. Kalyanppa Shivgunde