Dismissed¶15

Suneet D Mello v. Clare Jyoti D Mello

Bombay HC7 Jul 2025WP/259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Child custody; ad interim custody; ex-parte custody refusal; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; infructuous/moot petition; Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Mapusa Goa; Civil Misc. Application No.104/2025; psychologist evaluation Dr Mylin Maria Gonsalves; visitation rights to mother; High Court of Bombay at Goa; Valmiki Menezes J.; interim application; professional assistance to Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn on the petitioner's instructions; dismissed as withdrawn with no substantive relief granted. ¶15

Suneet D Mello Vs Clare Jyoti D Mello — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition permitted to be withdrawn on the petitioner's instructions; dismissed as withdrawn with no substantive relief granted.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether anything survives in the writ petition challenging the Trial Court's refusal to grant ad interim ex-parte custody of the children, in view of the Trial Court's subsequent ad interim custody order dated 06.06.2025.

¶15

Court's answer

In view of the ad interim order passed by the Trial Court on 06.06.2025, nothing survives in the petition challenging refusal of ad interim ex-parte custody of the children; consequently, on instructions from the petitioner present in Court, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn and was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

Key takeaways

Clarified that the Trial Court is at liberty to continue the appointment of the Psychologist appointed by this Court, whose services are presently being engaged by the Trial Court, and to take all measures to engage the assistance of such professionals as deemed fit in disposing of the interim application or any other proceedings between the parties.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.), 7 July 2025 — Writ Petition No.259/2025: Petition challenged the Trial Court's (Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa) refusal to grant ad interim ex-parte custody of the children. By order dated 30.05.2025 the High Court had appointed Dr Mylin Maria Gonsalves, Psychologist, to interview the children and report to the Trial Court, where Civil Misc. Application No.104/2025 seeking interim custody by the petitioner was pending. Pursuant thereto the Trial Court passed ad interim orders (dated 31.05.2025; order passed on 06.06.2025) granting the petitioner ad interim custody pending disposal of the Custody Application, with limited visitation rights to the respondent mother. Nothing therefore survived in the writ petition; on the petitioner's instructions it was dismissed as withdrawn. The Trial Court was clarified to be at liberty to continue engaging the Court-appointed psychologist and other professional assistance in the interim application or other proceedings between the parties.

¶1

35-WP-259-2025.DOC

¶2

Suchitra

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.259/2025

¶5

MR SUNEET D’MELLO Versus

¶6

… PETITIONER

¶7

MRS CLARE JYOTI D’MELLO … RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr Gaurish Agni with Mr Yash Naik, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Asha Desai, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶10

DATED: 7^th JULY 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Registry to waive objections and register the matter. his Court, by Order dated 30.05.2025 had appointed Dr Mylin Maria Gonsalves, a Psychologist to interview the children of the petitioner and respondent and to submit an evaluation report to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa where Civil Misc. Application No.104/2025 seeking interim relief of custody of the children by the petitioner was pending. Pursuant to directions to the Trial Court, by the same order, the Trial Court has passed ad interim orders on 31.05.2025, after hearing the parties and considering the report of the psychologist granting ad interim custody pending disposal of the Custody Application before it, to the petitioner with limited visitation rights to the respondent mother. his order was passed on 06.06.2025.

¶13

Page 1 of 2 7^th July 2025

¶14

35-WP-259-2025.DOC

¶15

2. Considering that the petition challenged refusal by the Trial Court to grant ad interim ex-parte custody of the children, in view of the ad interim order passed by the Trial Court on 06.06.2025, nothing survives in this petition. Consequently, and on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition. he petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

It is clariied that the Trial Court is at liberty to continue the appointment of the Psychologist appointed by this Court, and whose services are presently being engaged by the Trial Court, and to take all measures to engage the assistance of such professionals as deemed it to assist it at disposing of the interim application or any other proceedings between the parties.

¶17

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶18

Page 2 of 2 7^th July 2025

¶19

Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 08/07/2025 14:29:06

Suneet D Mello v. Clare Jyoti D Mello

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneet D Mello v. Clare Jyoti D Mello

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

Similar cases

Narayan Rajaram Bandekar, Thr. His Lawful Attorney Neeta Gopal Nayak Vs Saraswat Co-Operative Ban Ltd., @Saraswat Bank, Rep. by Its Branch Manager

Maria I. Fernandes E Dias Sapeco and Anr. Vs Gema Artmisia Pinto and 2 Ors.

Avinash Tiwari, Proprietor of Prism Enterprises. Vs Inst. of Petroleum, Safety, Health and Env. Management, Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.,Thr. Officer

Sarvesh Aikar Vs Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit Soc. Ltd. Rep. by Pandurang Kavlekar

Sarvesh Aikar Vs Vpk Urban Co-Operative Credit Soc. Ltd. Rep by Pandurang Kavlekar

Tukaram B. Mane Thr. Poa Dr. Sudam Bandu Mane Vs Goan Residential Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director Daphne Sequeira and 5 Ors.