Shilpi Kumari Sahay vs Pradeep Narendra Bhatia
2026 Latest Caselaw 4973 Bom

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

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.

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.]