Contempt petition alleging breach of an order granting a family member access to a suit property. The court read the prior order as granting access to only one room, not the whole property, found no wilful disobedience and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
18.conp-14-24.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE
Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.01.02 15:01:32 +0530
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 14 OF 2024
Michelle Lucette Curzai Dsa & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Christopher Joseph Curzai & Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. S. L. Shah i/b. Shah Legal for the Petitioners.
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Rahul Dangle, Hardik Desai for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Adv. Darryl Pereira a/w Beverly Fernandes for Respondent No.4.
Michelle Lecette Curzai Dsa , Petitioner is present.
Christopher Joseph Curzai, Respondent No.1. is present.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2024
P. C.
Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of contempt of the order dated 27th October 2023 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal (L) No. 29860 of 2023.
DECEMBER 18, 2024
Laxmi
Page 1 of 5
18.conp-14-24.docx
2. According to the Petitioners, the Division Bench permitted the
Petitioner No.1 herein to have access to the entire suit property, and in contrast, she is restricted to only one room. She is not in a position to either cook any food or even wash her clothes, is the case of the Petitioners.
Page 2 of 5 DECEMBER 18, 2024
Laxmi
18.conp-14-24.docx
property, so as to avoid any unpleasant situation being created. On the basis of this statement, the Division Bench disposed of the above Appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 27th October 2023 reads thus:
“6. After hearing counsel at some length we must note that this is yet another unfortunate instance of disputes amongst close family members (sisters on the one hand and brothers on the other). What appears clear to us is that an aged mother is caught in the cross fire between sparring siblings. While the present appeal can be disposed off on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the Respondents the same would not address the one aspect which to our mind also requires to be immediately addressed i.e. the welfare and well-being of Respondent No.4 the 93 year old mother. Hence we propose to address that aspect also while disposing of the Appeal, which we do in the following terms:-
(i) Statement of learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that they shall permit immediate unhindered and unfettered access to Appellant No.1 to the one room occupied by her on the first floor of the suit property until the hearing and final disposal of the Interim Application is accepted as an undertaking given to the Court.
(ii) That all the parties I.e. the Appellants, particularly Appellant No.1 on the one hand and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the other hand shall at all time ensure that they shall co-exist in a harmonious manner and without any acrimony, pursuant to the access granted to the suit property as per this order.”
Page 3 of 5
DECEMBER 18, 2024
Laxmi
18.conp-14-24.docx
granted access to the entire suit property. We, unfortunately, are unable to agree with this submission. When one reads the order of the Division Bench, it has to be read as a whole. One cannot pick out one sentence in the order and contend that access has been granted to Petitioner No.1 to the entire suit property. When one looks at paragraph 6(i), it is clear that Petitioner No.1 has been granted unhindered and unfettered access to one room occupied by her on the first floor of the suit property until the final hearing and disposal of the Interim Application pending before the learned Single Judge. When one reads the order of the Division Bench as a whole, we are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that access to the entire suit property is granted to Petitioner No.1. In fact, as per the statement made by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and on the basis of which the above Appeal was disposed of, access was granted to Petitioner No.1 only to one room in the suit property. The statement of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 categorically asserts that access to no other common areas of the suit property would be allowed to the 1st Petitioner in order to avoid any unpleasant situation being created. Once this is the case, we do not think that this is a fit case where the Court ought to entertain the Contempt Petition. We do not find that there is any wilful disobedience of the order dated 27th October 2023. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Page 4 of 5 DECEMBER 18, 2024
Laxmi
18.conp-14-24.docx
[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 5 of 5 DECEMBER 18, 2024
Laxmi
1 issue framed by the court
Did Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 wilfully disobey the Division Bench order dated 27 October 2023 by restricting Petitioner No.1's access to the suit property?
Michelle Lucette Curzai Dsa & Ors.
Christopher Joseph Curzai & Ors.
B. P. Colabawalla
Somasekhar Sundaresan
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
