Dismissed¶¶40

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha v. Alok Nath Sambuddha

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026WP/6252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Coram: N. J. Jamadar, J.; decided 27-03-2026. WP 6252/2025 and WP 6253/2025 (Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha v. Alok Nath Sambuddha) with I.A. Nos. 8647, 7716 and 8327 of 2025 dismissed for want of prosecution. Petitioner failed to appear in person despite orders dated 03-02-2026 and 25-02-2026; counsel declined to proceed with the hearing. Underlying grievance (not adjudicated): removal of the child to Mathura contrary to order dated 03-09-2025. Interim applications disposed in consequence. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that, having defied the order of the Court, the petitioner is intentionally avoiding the hearing of the petitions. ¶¶39

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha vs Alok Nath Sambuddha — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

23 WP 6252-25.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6252 OF 2025

¶4

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha Versus

Alok Nath Sambuddha

..Petitioner

…Respondent

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8647 OF 2025

¶10

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 6252 OF 2025

¶12

AND

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2025

¶14

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7716 OF 2025

¶15

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2025

¶17

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION 8327 OF 2025

¶18

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2025

¶20

Mr. Ravi Prakash, for the Petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma, for the Respondent.

¶21

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 27^th MARCH 2026

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶24

On 25^th February, 2026, this Court had passed the

following order:

1/3

SAINATH, PA

23 WP 6252-25.DOC

¶29

“3. By an order dated 3^rd February, 2026, this Court had directed the petitioner to appear before this Court inperson on 20^th February, 2026.

¶30

On 20^th February, 2026, the petitioner appeared inperson through Video Conferencing. The petitioner sought short accommodation as her Advocate was not in a position to appear before the Court.

¶31

As the grievance of the respondent is that, despite the order dated 3^rd September, 2025, the petitioner has removed the child to Mathura, this Court was constrained to direct the petitioner to appear in-person before the Court.

¶32

Since none appears for the petitioner today, the Court would be constrained to dismiss the petitions for non-prosecution.

¶33

Nonetheless, with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the Court and work out the petitions, by way of indulgence, post the petitions on 10^th March, 2026.”

¶34

Today, Mr. Prakash, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is unwell and, therefore, could not appear before this Court.

¶35

The learned Counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly requested to proceed with the hearing of the petitions. Yet, the learned Counsel expressed his unwillingness to proceed with the matters and insisted that the matters be adjourned.

¶36

2/3

¶37

SAINATH, PA

¶38

23 WP 6252-25.DOC

¶39

It appears that, having defied the order of the Court, the petitioner is intentionally avoiding the hearing of the petitions. Despite the aforesaid order dated 25^th February, 2026, the petitioner is not willing to proceed with the matters. Hence, the Court is constrained to dismiss the petitions for want of prosecution.

¶40

The Writ Petitions No. 6252/2025 and 6253/2025 thus stand dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶41

In view of the dismissal of the petitions, all the interim applications also stand disposed.

¶42

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶43

3/3

¶44

SAINATH, PA

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha v. Alok Nath Sambuddha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha v. Alok Nath Sambuddha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Kantilal Parikh and Ors. vs Neo Builders and Developers Thr. Its Director and Ors.

Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Assistant Director, Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Anr.

Moreshwar Anant Chogale and Ors. vs Rupesh Gaikwad and Ors.

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. vs Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr.

Moreshwar Anant Chogale and Ors. vs Rupesh Gaikwad and Ors.

Prakash Pandurang Thakur and Ors. vs M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd. and Ors.