Disposed¶39

Puneet Nitin Mehra v. Avni Jasraj Mehra

Bombay HC14 Oct 2025IA/12483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Child custody visitation overnight access Diwali vacation minor 8-year-old son/child father applicant mother respondent consent order same locality Bombay High Court Madhav J. Jamdar Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67 visitation rights defined specifics no costs interim application in writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Overnight access of the child to the Applicant-father: (i) 11.00 A.M. of 16th October 2025 to 5 P.M. of 17th October 2025; (ii) 11.00 A.M. of 18th October 2025 to 5 P.M. of 20th October 2025; (iii) 11.00 A.M. of 21st October 2025 to 8.00 P.M. of 22nd October 2025; with no order as to costs. ¶39

Puneet Nitin Mehra vs Avni Jasraj Mehra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant-father should be granted overnight access to the 8-year-old child during the Diwali vacation.

¶27

Court's answer

The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan - that a child requires the love, affection, company and protection of both parents, and that courts deciding custody matters must clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of visitation rights - are required to be kept in mind while deciding this Interim Application.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

An Order granting overnight Diwali-vacation access of the child to the Applicant-father is passed with the consent of the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

Key takeaways

Overnight access of the child is given to the Applicant-father as per the particulars set out in the Order, namely three windows: (i) 11.00 A.M. of 16th October 2025 to 5 P.M. of 17th October 2025; (ii) 11.00 A.M. of 18th October 2025 to 5 P.M. of 20th October 2025; and (iii) 11.00 A.M. of 21st October 2025 to 8.00 P.M. of 22nd October 2025.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), 14 October 2025 - Interim Application No. 12483 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 15881 of 2023, Puneet Nitin Mehra (Petitioner/Applicant-father) v. Avni Jasraj Mehra (Respondent-mother). The father sought five days' overnight Diwali-vacation access (17 to 26 October 2025) to the couple's 8-year-old child. The mother initially opposed but, on instructions, offered access on certain dates, citing the child's school picnic up to 15 October 2025, a family function on 17 October 2025 and a Pooja at her home on 20 October 2025. It was admitted that both parents stay in the same locality. Keeping in mind the Supreme Court's principles in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67 - that a child requires the love, affection, company and protection of both parents, and that courts must clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of visitation rights - the Court passed a consent order granting overnight access in three windows (16-17, 18-20 and 21-22 October 2025) and disposed of the Interim Application with no order as to costs.

¶1

18 IA 12483.25 IN WP 15881.23.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12483 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 15881 OF 2023 Puneet Nitin Mehra ...Applicant In the matter between : Puneet Nitin Mehra ...Petitioner Versus Avni Jasraj Mehra …Respondent

¶7

Ms. Prabha Badadare, Advocate for Applicant.

¶8

Ms. Firdaus Musa, a/w Ms. Dhwani Parekh i/by Jayakar & Partners for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 14^th October 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The Interim Application is filed by the Applicant- Father

¶12

seeking overnight access of the child during Diwali vacation.

¶13

Heard Ms. Badadare, learned Counsel for the Applicant and

¶14

Ms. Musa, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

¶15

Ms. Musa, learned Counsel raised several contentions and

¶16

submitted that the overnight access be not granted.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Dusane

¶19

18 IA 12483.25 IN WP 15881.23.DOC

¶20

The Supreme Court in the case of Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan¹ has held that a child, especially of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters

1 (2020) 3 SCC 67

Page 2 of 4

Dusane

18 IA 12483.25 IN WP 15881.23.DOC

¶25

must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights.

¶26

The above principles are required to be kept in mind while deciding this Interim Application.

¶27

The Applicant, who is the father has sought overnight Diwali vacation access of the child of 8 years. He is seeking 5 days overnight access from 17^th October 2025 to 26^th October 2025.

¶28

Although Ms. Musa, learned Counsel have initially opposed the relief, however, on instructions, states that the Respondent is aggreable for Diwali access on 18^th October 2025, 19^th October 2025, 21^st October 2025 in the morning for 3 hours and on 24^th October 2025 and 25^th October 2025. She submits that the child is having school picnic upto 15^th October 2025, in the evening on 17^th October 2025 there is some family function in the family of the Respondent-mother and on 20^th October 2025 evening, there is Pooja in the house of the Respondent-mother.

¶29