Bombay High Court
Nahida Rishad Cooper vs Rishad Darayas Cooper on 6 December, 2017
Bench: R.M. Savant
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 03:34:48 :::
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
