Disposed¶15

Vivek Shaw v. Namrata Singh

Calcutta HC24 Mar 2025CO/3889/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.O. 3889 of 2024; Shri Vivek Shaw v. Smt. Namrata Singh; expeditious disposal direction; custody/guardianship of minor son; Section 25 Guardians and Wards Act, 1980; Section 6 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 152 of 2016; learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas; nine-year pendency; visitation denied despite specific order; three-month disposal timeline; no unnecessary adjournments; Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; order dated March 24, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with a direction upon the Court below (learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas) to dispose of Misc. Case No. 152 of 2016, along with all pending applications, as expeditiously as possible without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within three months from communication of the order. ¶15

Vivek Shaw Vs Namrata Singh — Child Custody and Guardianship | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's prayer for expeditious hearing/disposal of Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 152 of 2016, pending for about nine years before the learned District Judge at Barasat, North 24 Parganas, should be allowed.

¶8

Court's answer

Since the main application has been pending for about nine years, the petitioner's prayer for expeditious hearing is justified and required to be allowed for the ends of justice.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

A direction was issued upon the Court below to make every endeavor to dispose of Misc. Case No. 152 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Court below was further directed to make its best effort to conclude the miscellaneous case along with all pending applications preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order dated March 24, 2025 by Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. disposing of C.O. 3889 of 2024 (Shri Vivek Shaw v. Smt. Namrata Singh), wherein the petitioner sought expeditious hearing of Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 152 of 2016 — a custody application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — pending for about nine years before the learned District Judge at Barasat, North 24 Parganas. Noting that the main application had been listed on several occasions without decision, that the visitation application remained undecided, and that the petitioner could not visit his minor son in spite of a specific order of the Court, the Court found the petitioner's prayer justified and required to be allowed for the ends of justice. The Court below was directed to make every endeavor to dispose of the miscellaneous case, along with all pending applications, without granting unnecessary adjournments, and to make its best effort to conclude the case preferably within three months from the date of communication of the order.

¶1

D/L.36. March 24, 2025. KAUSHIK

C.O. 3889 of 2024

Shri Vivek Shaw Vs.

Smt. Namrata Singh

Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee … for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Debabrata Roy … for the Opposite Party.

¶7

This is an application where the petitioner

¶8

has prayed for expeditious hearing of the Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 152 of 2016 presently pending before the learned District Judge at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed the application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking custody of the minor son against the opposite party herein about nine years back. In connection with the said application, the wife/Opposite Party herein also filed objection.

¶10

The grievance ventilated herein is that it would appear from the order sheet that the main application came up for consideration on several occasions before the Court below but learned Court below is fixing dates one after another

¶11

¶12

without deciding the application of the petitioner including the application seeking visitation of the child and that the petitioner could not visit his minor son in spite of specific order passed by the Court.

¶13

Mr. Debabrata Roy, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and the copy of the said application has been served upon learned counsel appeared for the Opposite Party.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Opposite Party that the main application filed under Act VIII of 1925 is pending for about nine years, I find that the prayer made by the petitioner is justified and required to be allowed for the ends of justice.

¶15

In such view of the matter, C.O. 3889 of 2024 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the Court below for making every endeavor to dispose of the Misc. Case No. 152 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and to make his best effort to conclude the said miscellaneous case along with all the pending applications preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

¶16

¶17

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Vivek Shaw v. Namrata Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Shaw v. Namrata Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miaraj Mandal and Anr. Vs Union of India

Sreyan Mitra @ Sreyon Mitra and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Pratul Maitra @ Pratul Kumar Maitra Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Atanu Pramanik and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Lalu Mirdya Alias Midya Vs Krishna Gopal Gorai

Hitesh Sharma and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.