Bombay High Court
Shilpi Kumari Sahay vs Pradeep Narendra Bhatia on 13 May, 2026
1 3-CP-291-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2026
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 594 OF 2025
Shilpi Kumari Sahay ...Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Narendra Bhatia ...Respondent
--------------------------------------------
Adv. Archit Jaykar, a/w Shivam Kukreja, Saloni Makhan & Azeem Khans, for
the Petitioner.
--------------------------------------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATED : 13 MAY 2026 P.C.:- (VACATION COURT)
1. Heard Mr. Jaykar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the Respondent.
2. Issue Notice to the Respondent returnable on 20 May 2026.
3. Mr. Jaykar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that several attempts have been made to serve the Respondent privately. In this regard, he has filed an Affidavit of Service, which is taken on record. The Affidavit of Service indicates that various modes of service, including postal service and WhatsApp, have been attempted to serve the Respondent. From the Affidavit Mayur 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2026 20:47:28 ::: 2 3-CP-291-2026 (C).doc of Service, it appears that the Respondent has been duly served. It thus appears that despite service, the Respondent is not present before the Court.
4. The urgency in the present proceedings is that the Respondent had made a statement to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh with the Registry of this Court towards reimbursement of school fees of the child, along with an additional amount of Rs. 1,76,000/-, which is also required to be deposited.
5. Mr. Jaykar submits that such deposit of fees ought to have been made in terms of the categorical directions contained in the order of this Court dated 13 February 2026, which, according to Mr. Jaykar, has not been complied with.
6. Considering the situation as narrated above, it would be just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the Respondent to appear.
7. Mr. Jaykar, shall circulate a copy of the order to the Respondent.
8. It is made clear that, in the event the Respondent once again fails to appear on the adjourned date, the Court shall be constrained to issue a Non- Bailable Warrant against the Respondent to secure the presence of the Respondent before the Court. This is in light of the fact that, on an earlier occasion, by order dated 16 January 2026, similar observations and directions were issued for securing the presence of the Respondent. Mayur 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2026 20:47:28 :::
3 3-CP-291-2026 (C).doc
9. Stand over to 20 May 2026.
10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] Mayur 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2026 20:47:28 :::