Somnath Laxman Jagtap vs Mrs. Monali Somnath Jagtap and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Somnath Laxman Jagtap vs Mrs. Monali Somnath Jagtap and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order only; the Contempt Petition was not finally decided. Directions issued: parties to exchange pleadings; petitioner to amend the title clause forthwith deleting respondent nos. 2 and 3; learned counsel for respondent no.1 to make a positive statement fixing place and time for meetings of the petitioner with the children (premises of the Court building suggested as advisable); matter stood over to 06.10.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent no.1 prevented the petitioner from meeting the children despite the order of the learned Tribunal, and whether that constitutes contempt, given that the circumstances of each attempted meeting are disputed. +1 more

Court's answer

Where, when and under what circumstances the petitioner attempted to meet the children, and under what circumstances respondent no.1 really prevented such meetings, are disputed questions of fact; accordingly the Court took the course of having an arrangement proposed rather than adjudicating the contempt allegation at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.1 was accepted, and he was required to make a positive statement with an arrangement that shall solve the controversy and would arrange meetings of the petitioner with the children.

Key takeaways

In the meantime, the parties were directed to exchange the pleadings between themselves.ratio¶25
At the request of learned counsel for respondent no.1, the matter was stood over to 06.10.2025.ratio¶30
The petitioner was directed to amend the title clause of the Contempt Petition by deleting the names of respondent nos. 2 and 3, forthwith.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order in a Contempt Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.), wherein the petitioner-husband alleged that respondent no.1/wife was not permitting him to meet the children despite an order of the learned Tribunal. The Court observed that where, when and under what circumstances access was sought and prevented raised disputed questions of fact, and therefore did not adjudicate the contempt allegation. Counsel for respondent no.1 undertook to propose an arrangement solving the controversy and arranging meetings (place and time to be intimated on the next date; premises of the Court building suggested as advisable, a time slab already having been fixed by the learned Trial Court). Parties were directed to exchange pleadings; the petitioner was directed to amend the title clause deleting respondent nos. 2 and 3 forthwith; and the matter stood over to 06.10.2025.

1

43-cp-186-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CONT. PETITION NO. 186 OF 2025

Somnath Laxman Jagtap

VERSUS

Mrs. Monali Somnath Jagtap And Others

Mr. A. B. Chormal, Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. S. V. Hange, AGP for Respondents-State

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 To 3

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR.

DATED : 29^TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

ORDER :-

. Mr. A. B. Chormal, learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that despite the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent no.1/wife is not permitting the present petitioner to meet the children.

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate representing the wife/respondent no.1 submits that this is a matrimonial dispute and particularly about visiting rights of either of parents to the children.

Keeping in mind the reasons of the scenario,

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar submits that on the next

date he would come with some solution, whereby the

2

43-cp-186-2025

petitioner could meet the children happily.

This would be a disputed question of facts as to where and what time and under what contingencies/condition the petitioner attempted to meet children, and that under which circumstances and where the respondent no.1 really prevented the petitioner from meeting the children.

Under these circumstances, the submission made by Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate is accepted. Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar to make a positive statement with an arrangement that shall solve the controversy and would arrange meetings of the petitioner with the children.

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate assures that the place and time for such meeting would be submitted on the next date.

In the meantime the parties to exchange the pleadings between themselves.

Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate would submit that the learned Trial Court has already given time slab for such meeting. However, for the convenience to the parties, he would submit the place to meet. Mr. Shaikh

3

43-cp-186-2025

Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate would also submit that the premises of the Court building may be advisable to arrange such meetings.

At the request of Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned Advocate, stand over to 06.10.2025.

Petitioner to amend the title clause of Contempt Petition thereby deleting the names of respondent nos.2 and 3. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2025