Disposed

Chirag Arora v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2021WP/92/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition by a father seeking production of his minor daughter, the High Court of Bombay declined to interfere, holding that custody disputes require adjudication by the competent Family Court. The petition was disposed of while continuing interim video conferencing access orders for three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; orders for video conferencing access continued for three months to enable filing of family court proceedings.

Chirag Arora Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

12-wp-92-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.92 OF 2021

¶4

Chirag Arora ...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra and Another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mrs. Seema Sarnaik i/b. Vikramsingh Parmar, for the Petitioner Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Tripti Shetty, for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JUNE 08, 2021 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard.

¶13

This Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus is fied by the Petitioner seeking a direction against Respondent No. 2, his wife, to produce their daughter before the Court. The directions are aiso sought against the Respondent No. 2 to provide immediate access to the chiid, formuiate shared custody pian, provide make up time and provide chiid’s compiete schooi and medicai record to the Petitioner.

¶14

The substance of the Petition is that the marriage of the

1/4

Vishal Parekar

12-wp-92-2021.doc

Petitioner was soiemnized with Respondent No. 2 on 10^th February, 2015. They are biessed with a daughter, who was born on 24^th June, 2016. The marriage was, however, afficted with discord whiie the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were residing at U.S.A. The Respondent No. 2 aiiegediy brought their daughter to India, without informing the Petitioner on or about 30^th December, 2019. Subsequentiy, the Respondent No. 2 issued a notice for dissoiution of the marriage on 18^th January, 2020. The Petitioner made earnest efforts to contact Respondent No. 2 with a view to meet his daughter. The whereabouts of the daughter of the Petitioner were kept away from the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner was constrained to fie a Petition before the Supreme Court. Later on, the said Petition was withdrawn with iiberty to fie a Petition before the appropriate forum. Hence, this Petition.

¶19

It wouid be suffce to note that the parties have fied affdavits in support of the Petition and in opposition thereto and in rejoinder. In the iight of the nature of the Petition, we do not deem it appropriate to deive deep into the thickets of facts and the aiiegations and counter-aiiegations in the wake of the maritai discord.

2/4

Vishal Parekar

12-wp-92-2021.doc

It may be expedient to note that by an order dated 5^th November, 2020 this Court directed Respondent No. 2 to provide access of the chiid to the Petitioner through video conferencing for 10 minutes in every week in the morning by 12 ‘O’ciock. When it was aiieged that the Respondent No. 2 did not give access of the chiid to the Petitioner as directed in the said order, by an order dated 28^th January, 2021 this Court directed that the order dated 5^th November, 2020 giving access to the chiid shaii remain in force untii further orders with modifcation that the access of the chiid to the Petitioner shaii be given through video conferencing for 20 minutes on every Saturday in the morning by 12 noon.

¶24

Indisputabiy, the giri chiid is about 5 years of age. The Petitioner has approached the Court with a case that the whereabouts of the chiid were being withheid and therefore the Respondent No. 2 be directed to produce the chiid. As it transpired, the chiid is with Respondent No. 2 at Pune. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the Petitioner has had access to the chiid, aibeit through video conferencing.

¶25

In the aforesaid backdrop, prima facie, the custody of the

3/4

Vishal Parekar

12-wp-92-2021.doc

chiid with Respondent No. 2 can not be said to be either iiiegai or uniawfui. The question as to whether in whose custody the weifare of the chiid wouid be better served, is a matter to be adjudicated upon by the competent Famiiy Court. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is not expected deive deep into the facts, especiaiiy in view of the situation which obtains with the chiid being in the custody of her mother, at Pune.

¶30

We therefore deem it appropriate to dispose of the Petition whiie continuing the order of access as passed by this Court on 5^th November, 2020 and on 28^th January, 2021 for a further period of three months so as to faciiitate the Petitioner to institute appropriate proceeding before the competent Court for appropriate reiiefs inciuding custody of, and access to, the chiid, if so advised.

¶31

The Petition stands disposed with the aforesaid directions.

¶32

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶33

4/4

¶34

Vishal Parekar

Chirag Arora v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chirag Arora v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rahul Panditrao Sadolikar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Law and Judicial Dept. and Ors.

Ms. Swati Bhimrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Sambhaji Bhingardive Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept. and Ors.

Sahajad Jamal Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Riyaz Ahmed Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Mohanlal Gohil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.