Samir Christopher Fernandes v. Sonya Marise Misquitta

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026WP/17967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Madhav J. Jamdar J.; Writ Petition No.17967 of 2024; Article 227 Constitution of India; Family Court Pune; child access/visitation application conditioned on deposit of 50% of maintenance arrears; D.V. proceedings; maintenance compliance disputed (paid vs arrears of Rs.2,20,000/- claimed); interim adjournment order upheld, no interference; merits and contentions expressly kept open; disposed of, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief: the Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs; both parties were directed to place before the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune material demonstrating payment of maintenance and/or outstanding arrears; merits and all contentions expressly kept open. ¶¶31

Samir Christopher Fernandes vs Sonya Marise Misquitta — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 1 May 2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune (directing the Petitioner-husband to deposit 50% of the maintenance arrears before an order on access to the child would be passed) is legal and valid, and whether interference by this Court is warranted. +1 more

¶¶12-¶13

Court's answer

No interference in the impugned order is warranted, as the impugned order merely adjourned the matter.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Both parties shall place before the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune material demonstrating that the Petitioner-father has paid the maintenance and/or that there are outstanding arrears.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

This Court has not considered the merits; all contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open.obiter¶¶29-¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.), Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Writ Petition No.17967 of 2024 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Samir Christopher Fernandes against Sonya Marise Misquitta, challenging the order dated 1 May 2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune. In the Respondent-wife's application seeking access to the child arising out of D.V. proceedings, that order had directed the Respondent-husband to deposit 50% of the arrears of maintenance within three days, stating that after such deposit an appropriate order for access of the child would be passed, and kept the matter on 4.6.24. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the entire maintenance had been paid; counsel for the Respondent submitted arrears of about Rs.2,20,000/-. Holding that the impugned order merely adjourned the matter, the Court found no interference warranted, directed both parties to place before the Family Court material demonstrating that the Petitioner-father had paid the maintenance and/or that there were outstanding arrears, expressly kept open all merits and contentions, and disposed of the Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

2-WP-17967-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.17967 OF 2024

¶4

Samir Christopher Fernandes …Petitioner Versus Sonya Marise Misquitta …Respondent

¶5

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2026.01.27 19:25:02 +0530

¶6

Mr. Sharad Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Shilpa Kadam and Mr. Birajdar, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Shruti P. Pokale i/b. Mr. Aadesh Konde-Deshmukh, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 27^th JANUARY 2026

¶9

PC:-

¶10

Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶11

Petitioner and Ms. Pokale, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶12

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 1^st May 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family

¶13

Court, Pune at Pune. The said order reads as under:

¶14

“It appears that the maintenance amount due towards respondent in D.V. proceedings.

Page 1

Sonali

2-WP-17967-2024.DOC

Respondent is claiming access but not discharging his responsibility. Respondent is directed to deposit 50% of arrears amount. Whatever, maintenance amount due towards him. Show is bonafide. The amount be deposited within three days. After depositing amount as above appropriate order will be passed for access of child. Matter be kept on 4.6.24.”

¶19

Thus, the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune in the application seeking access of the child has adjourned the matter, as it is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent-wife that the maintenance of the child has not been paid.

¶20

It is the submission of Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that entire maintenance has been paid.

¶21

On the other hand, Ms. Pokale, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-wife submits that there are arrears of about Rs.2,20,000/-.

¶22

By the impugned order the matter is adjourned to the next date and both the parties were directed to satisfy that the

Page 2

Sonali

2-WP-17967-2024.DOC

maintenance order has been complied with by the Petitionerhusband.

¶27

Thus, no interference in the impugned order is warranted, as merely matter is adjourned by the impugned order.

¶28

Accordingly, both parties shall place before the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune, material demonstrating that the Petitioner-father has paid the maintenance and/or there are outstanding arrears.

¶29