Samir Christopher Fernandes v. Sonya Marise Misquitta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17967 OF 2024 Samir Christopher Fernandes

...Petitioner

Versus

Sonya Marise Misquitta

...Respondent

Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date:

2026.01.27 19:25:02 +0530 SONALI MILIND PATIL Mr. Sharad Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Shilpa Kadam and Mr. Birajdar, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Shruti P. Pokale i/b. Mr. Aadesh Konde-Deshmukh, for the Respondent.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED :

27th JANUARY 2026 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Pokale, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2.

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 1st May 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune. The said order reads as under: "It appears that the maintenance amount due towards respondent in D.V. proceedings.

Respondent is claiming access but not discharging his responsibility. Respondent is directed to deposit 50% of arrears amount. Whatever, maintenance amount due towards him. Show is bonafide. The amount be deposited within three days. After depositing amount as above appropriate order will be passed for access of child. Matter be kept on 4.6.24."

3.

Thus, the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune in the application seeking access of the child has adjourned the matter, as it is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent-wife that the maintenance of the child has not been paid.

4.

It is the submission of Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that entire maintenance has been paid. 5.

On the other hand, Ms. Pokale, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-wife submits that there are arrears of about Rs.2,20,000/-.

6.

By the impugned order the matter is adjourned to the next date and both the parties were directed to satisfy that the

maintenance order has been complied with by the Petitionerhusband. 7.

Thus, no interference in the impugned order is warranted, as merely matter is adjourned by the impugned order. 8.

Accordingly, both parties shall place before the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune at Pune, material demonstrating that the Petitioner-father has paid the maintenance and/or there are outstanding arrears.

9.

It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits and all contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open. 10.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]