Bombay High Court
Mohammad Ishaq S/O. Mushtaq ... vs Mrs. Shahista Divorced W/O ... on 25 October, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
owp.3504.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3504/2016
Mohammad Ishaq s/o Mushtaq Qureshi
Aged 33 years, occu: service
R/o Behind house of Dr. Ahemad
Civil Lines, Gondiya, Tah and Dist. Gondiya. ...PETITIONER
v e r s u s
Mrs. Shahista divorce wife of Mohammad
Ishaq Qureshi @ Ms. Shahista d/o
Abdul Rashid Shaikh
Aged 24 years, occu: service
R/o Behind house of Dr. Somani
infront of Kali Mandir
Gondiya, Tah. & Dist. Gondiya. ..RESPONDENT
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.Nitin Vyawahare, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. R.K.Borkar, Adv. for respondent
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : 25th October, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the learned
counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same
returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2016 by
which the Application moved by him below Exh.10, for grant of temporary
::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:00 :::
owp.3504.16
2
custody as well as access to their minor child has been rejected.
3. The petitioner and respondent were married to each other on
17.11.2013. A child was born to them. However, on account of marital
discord, the parties decided to reside separately, by executing a document
dated 21.10.2015. The petitioner moved an Application for seeking access to
the minor child and also for having his temporary custody, under Section 25
of the Guardians and Wards Act,1890. After considering the stand of the
respondent, the trial Court rejected the said Application. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner has challenged the said order.
4. It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the dispute as
perusal of the impugned order indicates that the alternate prayer of the
petitioner for having access to meet his minor child has not been considered
by the learned principal District Judge, in the impugned order. Considering
the fact that the petitioner is the father of said minor child, the said request
for having access to his child for some time ought to have been considered.
It is, therefore, clear that the Application below Exh.10 is required to be
considered afresh.
5. At the same time, considering the fact that the petitioner is a
father of the minor child, an interim arrangement without prejudice to the
rights of the parties and subject to final orders being passed below Exh.10,
is required to be worked out. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2016 00:57:00 :::
owp.3504.16
3
ORDER
(i) The order dated 14.3.2016 passed below Exh.10 is set aside. The said
Application shall be decided afresh by the trial Court in accordance with law.
(ii) Till the Application is decided and purely by way of interim
arrangement without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, the
respondent shall give access of the minor child to the petitioner, on every
Thursday, between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m, in the Mediation Centre at
the District Court, Gondia. Similarly, such an access shall also be given to the
petitioner whenever the proceedings are considered by the trial Court while
deciding the Application below Exh.10. It is clarified that this arrangement is
purely workable arrangement and without prejudice to the rights of the
parties. The trial Court while deciding the Application shall not be influenced
by the present arrangement.
Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
sahare
