Smt.Swati Arvind Manor v. Shri.Arvind Uttamrao Manor

1 / 2 27-CAM-108-17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2017 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.101 OF 2017 Smt.Swati Arvind Manor .... Appellant versus Arvind Uttamrao Manor ... Respondent .......

• Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for Appellant.

• Mr.Niranjan Mogre, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 13th MARCH, 2019.

P.C. :

1.

This application filed by the Appellant/wife presents strange facts.

2.

The Family Court in the impugned judgment has given custody of the minor son to the wife, with limited custody to the husband. The applicant/Wife contends before us that she is not interested in the custody of the child, she is not prepared to look after the child and she is not prepared to even have limited access to the child's custody. So much is cleanly clear to us Nesarikar

2 / 2 27-CAM-108-17.odt during the course of oral arguments by her Counsel. Howsoever strange and if we may add, heartless it may sound, but this is a hard reality. The wife has therefore filed this Application seeking stay of that portion of the judgment of the Family Court, under which the Court has directed the husband to hand over the custody of the child to her. In fact, we wonder whether the husband who is directed to hand over custody of the child, can even ask for execution of said direction.

3.

Learned Counsel Mr.Niranjan Mogre for the Respondent/Husband stated on the instructions that under such circumstances, the husband is not willing to continue to take care of the child. Inspite of that the husband does not intend to file Execution Petition for implementation of these directions of Family Court.

4.

Under such circumstances we see no reason to pass any such order in this Civil Application as prayed for. The same is disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)