Shishir Kamalnayan Shirolkar vs Archana Shishir Shirolkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shishir Kamalnayan Shirolkar vs Archana Shishir Shirolkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the Writ Petition; petition disposed of as withdrawn; any future application for access before the Family Court to be decided on its own merits with contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, having returned to the United States of America and stating he is not interested in prosecuting the Writ Petition challenging the supervised access granted by the Family Court No.6, Mumbai order dated 26th December 2025, should be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the above, and particularly when the Petitioner has made a categorical statement that he will abide by the Order dated 23rd September 2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.110 of 2024, there cannot be any basis for the apprehension expressed by learned Counsel for the Respondent that the minor daughter will be taken to the USA.

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition and the same is disposed of as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

As and when the Petitioner returns to India, if he files an appropriate application before the Family Court seeking access, such application is to be decided on its own merits; all contentions in that behalf are kept open.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No.103 of 2026 — Shishir Kamalnayan Shirolkar v. Archana Shishir Shirolkar — Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. — Decided 20 February 2026. Custody/access matter: the Petition challenged the Order dated 26th December 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.6, Mumbai, below Exhibit-132 in Petition No. A-2296 of 2020, by which supervised access had been granted. Having returned to the USA, the Petitioner sought withdrawal; the Respondent apprehended removal of the minor daughter to the USA on the basis of an ex parte Order of the Williamson County Court, Texas (recorded in ¶15 as Cause No.20-2427-FC3). Relying on the Petitioner's categorical undertaking to abide by the Judgment and Order dated 23rd September 2024 of a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.110 of 2024 — which declined habeas corpus and custody, recorded that the welfare of the daughter lies in her staying with her mother, and observed that it is always open to the father to avail access — the Court held there was no basis for the apprehension, permitted withdrawal and disposed of the Petition as withdrawn. Any future application for access before the Family Court is to be decided on its own merits; all contentions kept open.

89-WP-103-2026.doc

Arjun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 2026

Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL VITTHAL KUDHEKAR KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.02.20 22:05:13 +0530

Shishir Kamalnayan Shirolkar …Petitioner Versus Archana Shishir Shirolkar …Respondent _______________________________________________________________

Mr. Janay Jain i/b Akshay Arora, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sangeeta Salvi, for the Respondent.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 20 FEBRUARY 2026

P.C.:

Heard Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Salvi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Order dated 26th December 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.6, Mumbai, below Exhibit-132 in Petition No. A-2296 of 2020. By the impugned Order, supervised access has been granted. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel further states that the Petitioner has now returned back to the United States of America (USA) and, therefore, is not interested in prosecuting the Writ Petition.

1

89-WP-103-2026.doc

On the other hand, Ms. Salvi, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that there is an apprehension that, on the basis of ex parte Order passed by the Williamson County Court, Texas, in Cause No.20-2427-FC3, the minor daughter will be taken to the USA.

However, Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, points out the Judgment and Order dated 23rd September 2024 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.110 of 2024, which was filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus on the basis of the ex-parte Order passed by the Williamson County Court, Texas, in Cause No.202427-FC3. He submits that, by the said detailed Order dated 23rd September 2024, a Division Bench of this Court declined to grant said relief, as also the relief of custody of the minor daughter and it has been specifically recorded that the welfare of the daughter lies in her staying with her mother. He submits that, therefore, there is no basis for the said apprehension. He further submits that the Petitioner will abide by the Order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.110 of 2024, wherein, the relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and custody of the minor daughter was dismissed by specifically observing that it is always open for the Petitioner, as a father, to avail access to his daughter.

Thus, in view of the above, and particularly when the Petitioner has made a categorical statement that he will abide by the Order dated

2

89-WP-103-2026.doc

23rd September 2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.110 of 2024, there cannot be any basis for the apprehension expressed by learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition and the same is disposed of as withdrawn.

Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that, as and when the Petitioner returns to India, he will file an appropriate application before the Family Court seeking access. Ms. Salvi, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that such access, if sought, shall be supervised access. If such application is filed, the same be decided on its own merits. All contentions in that behalf are expressed kept open.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

3