Disposed

Amey Dilip Sardessai v. Gayatri Amey Sardessai

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021WP/219/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the applicant sought to restrain the respondent's father from accompanying the minor child during visitation and to shift visitation to the applicant's home. The High Court declined the request to change the location or grant visitation independent of the main petition but modified the exit hour of the existing visitation schedule to 7:00 p.m.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the visitation time from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. ; direction to District Court to decide the pending appeal within three months. The prayer to restrain the respondent's father and shift

Amey Dilip Sardessai Vs Gayatri Amey Sardessai — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

26-MCA-1708-2021-F.DOC

¶2

vinita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1708 OF 2021(FILING) IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 219 OF 2021.

¶5

AMEY DILIP SARDESSAI, … Applicant. Versus

¶6

GAYATRI AMEY SARDESSAI …Respondent.

¶7

Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Shridhar Kamat, Advocate for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATED: 27^th September, 2021.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. This petition was filed on 6.4.2021, for a direction to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji to hear an interim application for visitation rights, week end custody and other reliefs moved on behalf of the petitioner. The said application was moved before the aforesaid Court for the reason that there is matrimonial discord between the parties and the minor child born on 10.6.2020, is with the respondent. The petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife and they are presently living separately in the backdrop of the matrimonial discord.

¶11

2. In this petition, an interim prayer for grant of visitation rights of the child was also made. During the course of hearing of this petition, on 26.4.2021, this Court passed the following Order: -

¶12

 In response to the query made by the Court
and in compliance with the last order, the

¶13

Page 1 of 6 27th September 2021

¶14

26-MCA-1708-2021-F.DOC

¶15

parties hereto agree that the respondent shall
bring the child to her parental place, which is
at St. Anthony wado at Guirim, Bardez, Goa
on every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday at
4:00 p.m. The petitioner along with his
parents can attend the said place for having
access to the child and can spend time upto
6:00 p.m.

¶16

2. In the aforesaid background as the parties
agree to the aforesaid solution as
submitted before the Court, the matter
is adjourned to 06.05.2021 for
reporting further compliance in the matter.
3. Needless to observe that both the
parties agree that they shall not expose the
child to any crowded place considering the
pandemic situation.

¶17

3. It appears that thereafter the aforesaid arrangement continued till, on a particular day an incident is alleged to have taken place where there was a difference of opinion and scuffle between the father of the respondent and the petitioner. In this backdrop, the petitioner has moved Misc. Civil Application no.1708 of 2021(Filing) with a prayer for restraining the father of the respondent from accompanying the minor child during visitation at the parental place indicated in the order dated 26.4.2021.

¶18

4. Affidavits in reply, rejoinder and sur rejoinder have been filed and, as is common in such cases, allegations and counter allegations have been made by the rival parties against each other.

¶19

5. This Court is informed that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, by an order dated 8.9.2021, the aforesaid

¶20

Page 2 of 6 27th September 2021

¶21

26-MCA-1708-2021-F.DOC

¶22

application filed by the petitioner for visitation rights and week
end custody itself has been decided. The application has been
dismissed by the said Court and it is made clear in the order that
the parties shall continue with the arrangement regarding
visitation as agreed before this Court.

¶23

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the unfortunate incident that took place on a particular day of visitation, it was imperative that the father of the respondent be restrained from being present at the time of visitation of the petitioner at the parental place, in terms of the order dated 26.4.2021 passed by this Court. It is pointed out that that the very order specifically states that the respondent agreed to bring the child to the parental place on the appointed days and at specific time for the petitioner to enjoy visitation rights. It was submitted that the order be suitably modified to permit the child to be taken to the house of the petitioner so that his parents could also enjoy the visitation rights. The petitioner would undertake to return the child to the respondent after visitation rights were enjoyed on particular days as directed by this Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the said order dated 8.9.2021, passed by the Court dismissing the application for visitation rights and week end custody and that a direction may be given for the appeal to be decided expeditiously.

¶24

7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that a perusal of the order dated 26.4.2021, would show that it was on agreement of the parties that the said arrangement was made. It was submitted that the allegations made against the father of the respondent were

¶25

Page 3 of 6 27th September 2021

¶26

26-MCA-1708-2021-F.DOC

¶27

baseless. As regards the request made on behalf of the petitioner
to take the child to his house during the time of visitation, it was
vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent. It was also
submitted that since the purpose for which the Writ Petition was
filed was already satisfied, in the sense that the application of the
petitioner for visitation rights stood disposed of by order dated
8.9.2021, strictly speaking the Writ Petition was rendered
infructuous. On this basis, it was submitted that the Writ
Petition may be dismissed, as the District Court would decide the
appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.9.2021,
passed by the aforesaid Court dismissing his application.

¶28

8. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent as to whether there was any objection on the part of the respondent if the duration of the visitation rights was extended by this Court, while days of visitation were maintained as per order dated 26.4.2021, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that he would leave it to this Court.

¶29

9. As regards the request made on behalf of the petitioner for taking the child to his house during visitation, in view of the vehement opposition of the respondent to the said request and since the order dated 26.4.2021, making aforesaid arrangement for visitation rights was passed on the parties agreeing to such an arrangement, as recorded in paragraph 2 of the said order, this Court is not inclined to grant the request sought by the petitioner. There is no dispute about the fact that the application for visitation rights and week end custody filed by the petitioner has been decided by order dated 8.9.2021. The Writ Petition was itself filed for a direction to decide the said application. Since the application has been dismissed, the petitioner has already filed the

¶30

Page 4 of 6 27th September 2021

¶31

26-MCA-1708-2021-F.DOC

¶32

said appeal before the District Court at Panaji. It is significant
that the said Court while dismissing the application of the
petitioner has clarified that in so far as the visitation rights are
concerned, the arrangement agreed between the parties before this
Court would continue to operate.

¶33

10. This Court has considered the contents of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for restraining the father of the respondent to accompany the child. This Court refrains from dealing with the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against each other. At the same time, it would be in the interest of the parties that an appropriate direction is given to the District Court to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. Additionally, this Court is of the opinion that the time period of visitation rights granted to the petitioner by order dated 26.4.2021 can be increased by one hour, in the interest of justice.

¶34

11. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: -

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(a) Arrangement of visitation recorded in the order dated 26.4.2021 shall continue to operate during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Court against the order dated 8.9.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Civil Misc. Application (P) No. 72 of 2020/A, with the following modification.

¶37

Page 5 of 6 27th September 2021

¶38

26-MCA-1708-2021-F.DOC

¶39

(b) The said arrangement is modified only to the extent that instead of the time period for the visitation rights being 4.00 p.m. to 6.p.m, the time period shall now be from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00p.m.

¶40

(c) The District Court is directed to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No.50/2021, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from today.

¶41

12.Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms and all pending
applications stand disposed of.

¶42

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶43

VINITA VIKAS NAIK Digitally signed by VINITA VIKAS NAIK Date: 2021.09.29 11:23:35 +05'30'

¶44

Page 6 of 6 27th September 2021

Amey Dilip Sardessai v. Gayatri Amey Sardessai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amey Dilip Sardessai v. Gayatri Amey Sardessai

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

State of Goa, Thr. Officer Incharge, Old Goa Police Station, Old Goa., Vs Ajit Bakal.

Francy Agnelo Gonsalves Vs State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr.

V. G. Quenim, a Prop. Concern, of Prasad Keni and 9 Ors. Vs Bandekar Bros. Pvt. Ltd., and 2 Ors.

Anant v. Lotlikar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Shaikh Nazir., Vs Parvimbi Shaikh.

Navinchandra Ramakant Catcar and 2 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 14 Ors.