Disposed¶5

Priyanka Vivek Dhadha v. Vivek D. Dhadha and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2025WP/14932/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition; Bombay High Court; Madhav J. Jamdar; Family Court No.5 Mumbai; Exhibit-15; Petition No. A-139 of 2024; direction to sign school documents; American School of Bombay; child admission; parent-teacher meetings; mother's access to child; undertakings to the Court; school formalities; disposed of; compliance reporting 12th June 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of in above terms on the basis of undertakings accepted from Respondent No.2-School: upon compliance with the School's formalities (to be completed by 12th May 2025 or shortly thereafter), the Petitioner will be allowed all rights available to other parents including Respondent No.1 (father) — encompassing accompanying the child to School and attending parent-teacher meetings; matter stood over to 12th June 2025 for reporting compliance.

Priyanka Vivek Dhadha vs Vivek D. Dhadha and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 7th August 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.5, Mumbai below Exhibit-15 in Petition No. A-139 of 2024 (directing the Petitioner-wife to sign certain documents as required by the School) could be sustained. +1 more

¶1

Ratio / Principle

The statements made by learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-School — that if the School's formalities are complied with (by 12th May 2025 or shortly thereafter) the Petitioner will be allowed all rights available to other parents including Respondent No.1 i.e. father — are accepted by this Court as undertakings given to the Court.

¶4

Key takeaways

In view of the above undertakings given by Respondent No.2-School, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.ratio¶5
At the request of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the matter is directed to stand over to 12th June 2025 for reporting compliance of the Order.obiter¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) disposed of a wife's writ petition (WP No. 14932 of 2024) challenging the order dated 7th August 2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.5, Mumbai below Exhibit-15 in Petition No. A-139 of 2024, which had directed the Petitioner-wife to sign certain documents required by the child's school. Since the child had already been admitted to Respondent No.2, American School of Bombay, and the Petitioner was not pressing for a change of school, the surviving grievance — that she was not allowed to accompany the child to School or attend parent-teacher meetings — was addressed through statements of Respondent No.2's counsel, which the Court accepted as undertakings: on compliance with the School's formalities (by 12th May 2025 or shortly thereafter), the Petitioner would be allowed all rights available to other parents including Respondent No.1 (father). The Petition was disposed of in those terms, with a compliance listing on 12th June 2025. No statute or precedent was cited; the validity of the Family Court order itself was not adjudicated on merits.

¶1

921-WP-14932-2024.doc

¶2

Arjun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL VITTHAL KUDHEKAR KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.05.08 20:11:17 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14932 OF 2024

¶6

Priyanka Vivek Dhadha …Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vivek K. Dhadha & Anr. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud a/w Shikhani Shah & Maniram R. Gaud, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Sapana Rachure, for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Vivek Gore a/w Anju Gupta, for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 08 MAY 2025

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Order dated 7th August 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.5, Mumbai below Exhibit-15 in Petition No. A-139 of 2024 directing the Petitionerwife to sign certain documents as required by the School.

¶15

As the Petitioner was not agreeable to take admission of the child in the said School, the Petitioner and the Respondent have some dispute. However, in the meanwhile, admission of the child has been taken in the Respondent No.2 i.e. American School of Bombay.

¶16

On 2nd May 2025, Mr. Gaud, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions of the Petitioner, submitted that as far as the Respondent No.2-School is concerned, as the child is settled in the said

¶17

¶18

921-WP-14932-2024.doc

¶19

School the Petitioner is not pressing for change of the School. He, however, submitted that the Petitioner is not allowed to accompany with the child to the School and also not allowed to attend the parentteacher meetings. Therefore, notice has been issued to the Respondent No.2-School.

¶20

Mr. Vivek Gore, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2School states that if formalities of the School are complied with, then Respondent No.2-School has no objection for allowing the Petitioner to

¶21

have all rights as allowed to other parents including the Respondent No.1. He states that the entire formalities will be completed by 12th May 2025 or shortly thereafter. He further states that the Petitioner will be allowed all the rights which are available to other parents including Respondent No.1 i.e. father. The said statements made by learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, made on the instructions of the authorities of the Respondent No.2, are accepted as undertakings given to the Court.

¶22

In view of the above undertakings given by the Respondent No.2School, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶23

However, at the request of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, stand over to 12th June 2025 for reporting compliance of this Order.

¶24

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶25

Priyanka Vivek Dhadha v. Vivek D. Dhadha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Vivek Dhadha v. Vivek D. Dhadha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandip Somnath Hiray vs State of Maharashtra

Hemant Radhakrishna Sapale vs Vyankatesh Devidas Kamat and Ors.

Yusuf Abdul Maner Since Deceased through Legal Heirs vs Mahadeo Dresses through Artners Mahadev Krushna Rangate Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Madhukar Bhagwant Dhonsale vs Mangesh Balwant @ Balasaheb Dhonsale and Ors.

Radhakrishna Laxman Joshi vs Rajan Hanumant Malandkar

Manisha Amit Tawade vs Amit Ambaram Tawde