1 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (L) NO.374 OF 2017
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.6 OF 2017
IN
PARSI SUIT NO.8 OF 2017
ALONG WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1984 OF 2017
IN
APPEAL (L) NO.374 OF 2017
Nahida Rishad Cooper ] ... Appellant /
Applicant
In the matter of :
Mrs. Nahida Rishad Cooper ]
Age - 42 years, Occupation - Homemaker, ]
Residing at Keravala Lodge, 33 Station Road, ]
Santacruz (West), Mumbai - 400 054. ] ... Appellant /
Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Rishad Darayas Cooper ]
Age - 41 years, Occupation - Journalist, ]
Residing at D-38, Clover Pinacle Ridge ]
Nibm Undri, Pune - 411 048. ] ... Respondent /
Defendant
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate i/b Mrs. Taubon F. Irani for
Appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Bhojwani i/b SB Law Associates for Respondent.
URS 1 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
2 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
CORAM :- R. M. SAVANT &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 20 NOVEMBER, 2017 PRONUNCED ON :- 06 DECEMBER, 2017 JUDGMENT (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-
1. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff in Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017 before the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court at Bombay, which is the High Court. The Appellant is the wife of the Respondent (original Defendant) herein. They have a son named Marc.
2. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 22/09/2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (R. G. Ketkar, J.) in Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017 in the said Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the Appellant's prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017. The Appellant, by the said prayer, had prayed that till the hearing and final disposal of the Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017, the Respondent - original Defendant be restrained from taking forcible physical custody of their minor son Marc. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to decide URS 2 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 3 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc the question of custody of Marc during the pendency of the suit on certain terms, which included that the Appellant should reside at Pune with Marc at either of the properties mentioned in clause (2) of the operative part of the order and in case she was not so willing, she was directed to hand over the custody of Marc to the Respondent herein immediately. It was further made clear that the observations made in the said order were prima-facie and tentative and were made only for the purpose of considering prayer clause (a) of the said Notice of Motion and that the learned Trial Judge at Pune should decide the pending applications and the suit before him on their own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in the said order.
3. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has in some detail, referred to the chronology of dates and events. We, therefore, do no propose to repeat the same save and except the facts which are mentioned hereinafter.
4. The Appellant Nahida and the Respondent Rishad are Parsis by religion and are governed by the provisions of The Parsi URS 3 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 4 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 ('said Act' for short). They would hereinafter be referred to as 'Nahida' and 'Rishad'. Their marriage was performed at Mumbai on 24/05/2008 according to the Parsi marriage and religious rites. From the said wedlock, son Marc was born on 17/07/2010. It seems that marital discord arose between the couple which led Rishad to file Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 in the Parsi Matrimonial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Principal District Judge at Pune, on 22/02/2017 for a Decree of divorce under the said Act and also for custody of their minor son Marc. One more prayer in the suit was that Nahida herein be restrained from taking Marc out of Pune, for taking admission in any school or institution out of Pune.
5. In the said Suit bearing no.10 of 2017, an application Exh.5 came to be filed for temporary injunction restraining Nahida from taking Marc out of Pune or taking his admission in any school outside Pune. The said application was also filed on 22/02/2017. The said Suit is being heard by the learned Principal District Judge, Pune.
URS 4 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
5 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
6. Nahida, on the other hand, filed an application vide Exh.15 in Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune seeking various reliefs i.e. by way of interim injunction restraining Rishad from entering Nahida's or Marc's bedroom from 7.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m., from harassing her or misbehaving with her, from restraining Rishad from going out of the house with Marc at odd time and from disturbing her matrimonial home i.e. D-38, Clover-Pinnacle, Ridge NIBM, Undri Road, Pune. The said application was filed on 21//04/2017 and Rishad had filed his reply on 30/06/2017 opposing the said application. Even this application is pending before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune.
7. Nahida also filed her say on 21/04/2017 resisting the grant of reliefs sought vide the said Exh.5. The averments made in the said reply assume some importance as they are referred to by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order. In the meantime on 27/05/2017, Nahida took Marc to Mumbai. She thereafter got him admitted in Manekji Cooper High School at Mumbai. Marc is therefore presently in Mumbai along with Nahida.
URS 5 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
6 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
8. In these circumstances, Rishad filed another application vide Exh.20 in the said Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 praying that Nahida be restrained from continuing to detain Marc at any location other than his residence at Pune and that Nahida be restrained from getting him admitted to any school outside Pune. The said application was filed on 09/06/2017.
9. Rishad filed one more application vide Exh.25 in the said suit at Pune on 13/06/2017 praying that pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, the custody of Marc should be given to him.
10. Nahida filed her reply to the application dated 09/06/2017 filed by Rishad in Pune Court only on 21/06/2017. It is required to be noted that the said applications Exh.5, Exh.20 and Exh.25 are pending adjudication as of date.
11. Before filing her say to the application Exh.5 in the said Civil Suit No.10 of 2017, Nahida filed an application vide MCA(ST) No.11133 of 2017 on 18/04/2017 in this Court. The said application was filed for seeking transfer of the said Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 filed URS 6 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 7 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc by Rishad from the District Court, Pune, to the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, Bombay. The said application was disposed of by the order dated 09/06/2017 (the actual date of the order is 08/06/2017 which is not disputed by either of the parties) passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court. The matter was not transferred to Mumbai and Nahida herein had agreed to attend the proceedings before the Pune Court provided she was paid the expenses towards travelling etc. Rishad was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- on each date of hearing.
12. After the said MCA (ST) No.11133 of 2017 was dismissed, Nahida filed Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017 in this Court on 28/06/2017. Along with the said Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017, Nahida filed Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017 praying therein that till the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant be restrained from taking forcible physical custody of Marc. The other prayers in the Notice of Motion related to maintenance, expenses towards education of Marc and providing for accommodation. Rishad resisted the said Notice of Motion by filing Affidavit dated 01/08/2017. The order dated 22/09/2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (R. G.
URS 7 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
8 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
Ketkar, J.) in the said Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017 in Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017 is impugned in the present Appeal. The learned Single Judge, by the said order dated 22/09/2017, was pleased to reject prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion and further issued directions in respect of the custody of Marc as mentioned earlier. The learned Single Judge was pleased to grant liberty to Nahida to file appropriate proceedings for other reliefs claimed in the said Notice of Motion.
13. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the material on record, came to a conclusion that Nahida, by bringing Marc to Mumbai and admitting him to a school in Mumbai, has acted in breach of the undertaking which she had orally given to the learned Principal District Judge at Pune. The learned Single Judge, whilst arriving at the said conclusion, has referred to the pleadings of Nahida, which according to the learned Single Judge, indicate the fact that such an undertaking was in fact given by Nahida. The learned Single Judge interacted with Marc in his chamber. The learned Judge also interacted with Nahida and Rishad to find out whether reconciliation was possible, but prima facie found that there was no possibility of reconciliation. During the interaction with Marc, the URS 8 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 9 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc learned Single Judge found him to be a bright and intelligent child. Marc told the learned Single Judge that he liked both the schools i.e. Manekji Cooper High School at Mumbai as also the Bishop's School at Pune. Marc further told the learned Single Judge that he missed his friends in the Bishop's School at Pune and was ready and willing to go to Pune to meet his friends. Marc expressed his desire that both Nahida and Rishad should stay together.
14. The learned Single Judge considered the pleadings of the parties, Affidavits filed by them and also considered their oral submissions in great detail. The learned Single Judge considered the case-law pertaining to the issue of custody of a minor child propounded by various Courts, including the Apex Court, this Court as also the foreign Judgments. The learned Single Judge recorded his satisfaction that in the absence of any evidence on record, it was necessary to hold a summary inquiry to decide the question as to whether Marc should be sent back to Pune. The learned Single Judge reached the conclusion that by sending Marc back to Pune, there was no danger to his moral or physical health and that by sending him to Pune, he would not suffer any harm and that the summary order was URS 9 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 10 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc in the best interest of Marc. One of the cases reported in (1965) 3 All England L. R. 906 which is cited by the learned Judge generally summarizes the ratio laid down consistently by these Judgments. In the said case, it was observed that the Judge has to weigh various considerations which could, to a great extent, be in conflict with one another. On one side, it was a public policy aspect, the question of comity and the question of 'forum convenience' and again on the same side, there was a question of injustice that might have been done to the wronged parent if the Court delays matters and allows the kidnapped child to take root in the other country.
15. In the backdrop of such considerations, the learned Single Judge recorded his reasoning and passed the impugned order.
16. Before proceeding with the hearing of the above Appeal, we had suggested to the learned Counsel for the parties to explore the possibilities of settlement, however, the learned Counsel informed us that there is no chance of any settlement taking place between the parties.
URS 10 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
11 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
17. We have heard Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Sanjay Bhojwani, the learned Advocate for the Respondent.
18. Mr. Desai submitted that Nahida had never made a specific categorical statement that she would never take Marc out of Pune city. He disputed the claim of Rishad that Nahida had given an oral undertaking to the learned Principal District Judge at Pune that she would never remove Marc out of Pune city. Mr. Desai submitted that in none of the Affidavits filed in any of the Courts, Nahida had made an averment by way of undertaking that she would never take Marc out of Pune. He further submitted that the summary procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge as regards the adjudication of the issue of removal of Marc from Pune, was not permissible. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not consider the compelling reasons as to why Nahida had to remove herself and Marc out of Pune city. He submitted that the welfare of Marc should be of paramount consideration. He submitted that Marc was progressing very well academically and was happy with his school in Mumbai. He further submitted that it was not possible for Nahida to shift to Pune URS 11 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 12 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc as she was completely isolated and apprehended danger from Rishad. He submitted that the fact of pendency of proceedings in Pune Court was not concealed in the present Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017. He further submitted that the ratio of the Judgment relied on by the learned Single Judge of this Court was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted that all these Judgments consider the factum of removal of the child from one country to another which is not the case in the present suit. Mr. Desai relied upon the latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 1. It was held in the said Judgment that the welfare of the child was of paramount importance and the order of the Foreign Court can be considered only as a factor to be taken into consideration. If the child was brought within India, the Courts in India could conduct summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry on the question of custody. The summary jurisdiction to return the child be exercised in cases where the child had been removed from its native land and removed to another country if the child got divorced from the social customs and contacts to which he was accustomed to or if his education was interrupted 1 (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 454 URS 12 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 13 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc causing psychological disturbance to the child and the summary jurisdiction could be exercised only if the Court to which child has been removed was moved promptly and quickly and the overriding consideration must be the interest and welfare of the child.
19. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Bhojwani, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the manner in which Nahida had removed the child, disentitles her from any relief as sought by her, in view of the fact that the proper proceedings were pending before a competent Court at Pune. He submitted that when the Principal District Judge at Pune was in seisin of the matter and the very same issue of custody of the child was pending before him, Nahida should not have removed Marc out of Pune. He submitted that the reply to Exh.5 clearly indicates that she had undertaken not to remove Marc outside the limits of Pune city. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 10(h) of the said 'Say' indicate that she had unequivocally undertaken not to remove Marc from Pune city. He further submitted that Nahida had filed her say on 21/04/2017 and she has removed the child on 27/05/2017 and there was no grievance made by her before the Pune Court in respect of the events which took place between 21/04/2017 and 27/05/2017 which URS 13 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 14 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc compelled her to remove herself and Marc from Pune to Mumbai. He further submitted that after having failed in her efforts to get the suit transferred from Pune to Mumbai, Nahida should have diligently followed the proceedings in Pune Court instead of filing the present Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017 in this Court. He further submitted that Nahida has deliberately suppressed in her plaint in Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017 before this Court, the details of the proceedings which were pending adjudication before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune in Suit No.10 of 2017. He further submitted that there was no reasonable apprehension to Nahida of any danger from Rishad and no such case is made out. He further submitted that Rishad was willing to restrict himself from going to the first floor where Nahida and Marc can reside in future. He further submitted that all the issues were pending detailed inquiry before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune. He submitted that Nahida, during the pendency of the decision in the above Notice of Motion, has filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 21 st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, again praying for custody of the minor son. He, therefore, submitted that Nahida was resorting to filing different proceedings before different Courts seeking the same relief of custody URS 14 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 15 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc of Marc. Mr. Bhojwani submitted that this clearly amounted to abuse of the legal process and therefore on this count also, Nahida is not entitled for any relief.
20. Having considered the rival submissions in the backdrop of their pleadings which are annexed to the present Appeal, we find that this is a bitterly fought battle over the custody of the minor child who is the unfortunate and unwilling victim of the circumstances. In deciding this Appeal, we have also borne in mind the welfare of Marc.
21. As regards the controversy about the breach of undertaking given by Nahida, we may refer to the 'Say' filed by Nahida to Exh.5 in Suit No.10 of 2017, and especially paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 10(h) which, according to us, assume importance. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinunder :-
"3. It is true to say that the son Marc is studying in the Bishops School in Pune camp. It is also not denied that the school is renowned one. But it is absolutely false to contend, as stated in para 2 of the application, that the defendant has threatened the plaintiff that she will take Marc to Bombay for admitting in a School. The allegations about any such threats from the defendant are absolutely false & the same are made for causing a prejudice against the defendant. It is absolutely false to URS 15 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 16 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc allege that the defendant is black-mailing & threatening the plaintiff for making him surrender to the alleged pressure tactics of the defendant.
4. All the allegations in para no.3 are false. It is absolutely false to contend that the child Marc shall face terrible & unavoidable trauma when he will be moved out of his familiar school environment. Basically the defendant has never threatened or even suggested to the plaintiff that she has thought of any plans for shifting Marc to the Mumbai till today.
5. All the allegations in para no.4 are false & misconceived. As already contended, the defendant is not having any plan of shifting Marc for his education outside Pune; all contentions regarding consequential effect after alleged shifting Marc, are therefore nothing but the imaginations of the plaintiff.
The contentions in para no.4 regarding impossibility on the part of the plaintiff as well as Marc regarding living without each-other are only imaginations of the plaintiff & statements deliberately made for causing prejudice against the defendant in the minbd of the Hon'ble Court. It is denied that there is a tremendous bond & strong love between the father & son. It is also false to state that it is not possible for the plaintiff to meet or visit Marc when he is out of Pune.
10(h). Plaintiff has sought the interim injunction in the blanket form regarding restrainment from taking Marc out of Pune. The defendant is legally entitled to take her son along with her to her father's house at Bombay during his vacation or on the holidays. Marc is always found to be vary happy in the company of his grandfather, maternal uncle & maternal cousin. Really it would be inhuman to keep him away from his loving relations.
Regarding change in the school also, it is already submitted that yet the defendant besides being a URS 16 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 17 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc responsible mother and a trained teacher is not having any particular reason of shifting Marc school from his present school. But one can not guess about the future. If the defendant is compelled by Plaintiffs mental torture and despicable behaviour to walkout of the house of plaintiff she may be forded to go to her father's house & in such a situation a small child is not expected to reside in Pune without his mother. Needless to state that welfare of the child is a paramount consideration, which can not be safeguarded if the child is not allowed to reside with his mother at his tender age.
Besides if such order is granted by this Honourable Court then nothing prevents the Plaintiff from harassing the defendant mentally and economically and in desperation driving her out of the house and due to the restraining order (if in force) it will prevent the Defendant even to go her Rightful Maternal Home of her Parent.
The Defendant states that the Plaintiff had done so once earlier and this is in his own admission in Para 17 Pune of he Plaint however he had distorted the fact in that particular Para."
The undertone in the above paragraphs is that Nahida had no plan of shifting Marc to Mumbai till filing of that say. In para 10(h), however, she has mentioned that one could not guess about the future and if she was compelled by Rishad's mental torture, she would be forced to go to her father's house in Mumbai along with the child. Based on this averment, Mr. Desai submitted that Nahida had not given any unequivocal undertaking that she would never take the child out of Pune city. However, we find force in the submission of URS 17 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 18 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc Mr. Bhojwani that she did not only surreptitiously remove the child out of Pune, but she filed a transfer application as well as the present suit in this Court. Hence we concur with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in that regard. It is in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed to the application Exh.5 that Nahida has mentioned the incident which had taken place on the night of 17/04/2017. In the Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017, Nahida has referred to the incident when Rishad allegedly removed the tower bolt holder of her bedroom causing serious apprehension in her mind. In the present Appeal memo, she has given the date of this incident as 21/04/2017. It is pertinent to note that she has thereafter stayed in Pune till 27/05/2017 when she, along with Marc, moved to Mumbai. Hence between 17/04/2017 and 27/05/3017, Nahida had stayed in Pune notwithstanding the incidents which had allegedly taken place on 17/04/2017 and 21/04/2017. The aforesaid fact, therefore, dents her case insofar as the alleged compelling circumstances for her to move out of Pune are concerned. Significantly, Nahida had not filed any application before the Pune Court seeking permission to go to Mumbai along with Marc though according to her the circumstances were such that they compelled her to move out of Pune.
URS 18 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
19 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
22. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide his order dated 09/06/2017 (actual date is 08/06/2017 passed in MCAST NO.1113 pf 2017) had already rejected Nahida's prayer for transfer of Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 from Pune to Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, Mumbai. The said order mentions that Nahida had agreed to attend the proceeding before the Pune Court if she was paid expenses towards travelling etc. and Rishad had undertaken to make such payment and therefore, there was no reason for her not to have proceeded with all the interim applications filed by the parties in Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune.
23. Nahida has not mentioned in her plaint in the suit in this Court, that Exh.5 for custody along with her say for consideration was pending before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune. Even in the Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017 in Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017, Nahida has not elaborated as to the stage at which the proceedings were pending before the Pune Court which, inter alia, included the relief claimed for the custody of Marc.
URS 19 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
20 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
24. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Mihir Desai has relied upon the latest Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nithya (supra) in support of his contention that the welfare of Marc is the defining aspect. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier Judgments, has laid down the ratio which is already referred hereinbefore. Even the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has elaborately discussed various Judgments of various Courts. The sum and substance of all these Judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge is that, keeping the welfare of the child as a paramount consideration, the Court could embark on summary inquiry for the decision in respect of the interim custody of the child. The learned Single Judge has, in the facts of the present case, deemed it appropriate to conduct a summary inquiry as regards the removal of Marc from Pune to Mumbai. We do not find any fault with the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in that regard. Though the impugned Judgment considers the cases where the child was removed from one country to another, the principles applied in those cases can be applied to the present case also mainly because they dealt with the custody / interim custody of the child when the child was removed from jurisdiction of one Court to another without consent of the other parent.
URS 20 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::
21 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc
25. As indicated above, the learned Single Judge has interacted with the child. The learned Judge has already recorded that Marc was willing to go to Pune and was looking forward to meeting his friends from Bishop's High School at Pune. The fact that Marc was born in Pune and lived in Pune till he was removed, cannot be lost sight of at this stage. We are of the view that the welfare of Marc would not suffer if he is moved back to Pune. Marc himself had no grievance against Rishad and, in fact, it was his wish that his parents lived together. Nahida, in her Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017 in the suit has also stated that, if she continued to reside in her father's house, it would cause grave inconvenience to her brother's family.
26. We find that instead of contesting the question of custody of Marc in Pune Court wherein the suit was filed earlier in point of time, Nahida filed the present suit before this Court in which one of the prayers is also in respect of the custody of Marc. We find some force in the submission of Mr. Bhojwani that this amounts to abuse of the process of law. He has also invited our attention to the fact that Nahida has now filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act URS 21 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 22 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, wherein, again, the question of Marc's custody has been raised. We are not going into the propriety or the right of Nahida to file such proceeding. In our view, filing of the said proceedings in a way reflects upon the conduct of Nahida. In our view, the said situation could have been surely avoided. Mr. Bhojwani has stated that Mark's admission is still intact in Bishop's School at Pune and that Rishad has paid the term fees.
27. Since the Exh.5, Exh.15, Exh.20 and Exh.25, as mentioned earlier, are pending in Civil Suit No.10 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Judge at Pune, both the parties can contest those proceedings and question regarding the custody of Marc pending the suit can be decided there. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by the impugned order, has committed no error in issuing the directions in this regard and also in directing that the learned trial Judge at Pune to decide the pending applications on their own merits in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has clarified that his observations in the said order were prima facie and tentative and were made only for the purpose of considering prayer clause (a) of the Notice of URS 22 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 23 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc Motion before him. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the details of allegations, counter-allegations, emails exchanged by or on behalf of the parties. All these can be considered by the competent Court i.e. the learned Principal District Judge at Pune while deciding all the applications pending before him by conducting elaborate inquiry in that regard. The impugned Judgment and Order, in our view, does not call for for any interference.
28. Hence, there is no merit in the above Appeal which to accordingly stand dismissed.
29. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the Notice of Motion does not survive and the same to accordingly stand disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.) At the time of pronouncement of Judgment :- 06/12/2017
30. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mrs. T. F. Irani seeks stay of the instant Judgment and Order for a period of four URS 23 of 24 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 ::: 24 APPL 374-17 - Judgment.doc weeks from date. The stay application is opposed to by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant Judgment and Order is stayed for a period of two weeks from date.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)
URS 24 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 03:34:52 :::