Bombay High Court
Dr. Dhiraj S/O Ramshankarji Gupta vs Dr. Radhika W/O Dr. Dhiraj Gupta @ ... on 28 April, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
25-fca 42-18.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.269 OF 2022
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2018(D)
Dr.Dhiraj Gupta
-Vs-
Dr.Radhika Dhiraj Gupta
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.J.M.Gandhi, counsel for the ori. Appellant/non applicant
Mr.C.S.Kaptan a/b Mr.A.A.Naik and Mr. Masood Shareef counsel for the
respondent /applicant.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
SMT.M.S.JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 28.04.2022.
1. Heard.
2. Presently, the only wish of the appellant father
as conveyed to this Court, through his learned counsel
Shri. Gandhi is that respondent-mother must abide by the
direction issued by this Court in clause- (iv) of the final
judgment dated 26th July 2016 and it would mean,
according to learned counsel for the appellant that the
mother would be obliged to hand over custody of the
child on every Saturday and allow the child to stay with
the father till Monday morning.
3. A careful consideration of the directions issued
by this Court would reveal that this Court has only
permitted the appellant father over night access to the
Kavita
25-fca 42-18.odt
child on weekend-Saturday and also permitted
telephone access. This means that the father would be
entitled, as per clause (iv) of the operative part of the
judgment, to have access and to have custody of the child
for Saturday and also the night intervening Saturday and
Sunday and he would be under a duty to hand over the
custody of the child back to the mother in the morning of
the next date i.e. Sunday which may be for the
convenience of the parties, not beyond 10.00 a.m. of that
Sunday.
4. It is clarified that above directions have been
issued only because of the fact that for some or the other
reason the respondent has not been able to take the child
to U.K as per the permission granted to her as per clause
(iii) of the operative order of the judgment of this Court
and therefore, as and when, respondent wishes to take
the child to U.K in terms of clause (iii) of the said
judgment, this order shall not come in her way.
5. It is seen that the application which the mother
has moved before the Passport authorities for issuance of
Passport to her son Raajveer Gupta, describes the mother
by her maiden name as "Reshma Tarannum Inamdar''
and whereas, in other record, the mother has been
described by the name "Radhika Gupta". It appears that
because of the discrepancy in the name of the mother
that the issue of Passport to be granted to Raajveer is
pending with the Passport authorities. This is the reason
why the mother has filed this application seeking
Kavita
25-fca 42-18.odt
direction to the Passport authorities to process the
application filed by the mother showing her name as
"Reshma Tarannum Inamdar". Since, the Passport issued
to mother is in the name of "Reshma Tarannum
Inamdar", we see no difficulty in issuing a direction to
Passport authorities for processing the application
accordingly.
6. The application is allowed and we direct the
Passport authorities to process the application file
No.NG1075630712821, which shows the name of the
mother of Raajveer as 'Reshma Tarannum Inamdar' in
accordance with law as early as possible. The civil
application is disposed of accordingly.
7. As regards the second prayer, we have already
clarified that the mother would be at liberty to take the
child to U.K in terms of the permission granted to her
vide clause(iii) of the operative part of the judgment.
8. Civil application is disposed of accordingly.
(SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
Kavita
