Harjyot Singh Bedi Nee Nicky Bedi v. Monisha Harjyot Singh Bedi Nee Monisha Gupta Bedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.357 OF 2026 Harjyot Singh Bedi @ Nicky Bedi
...Petitioner
Versus
Monisha Harjyot Singh Bedi @ Monisha Gupta Bedi
...Respondent
SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date: 2026.03.20 14:38:26 +0530 Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh i/b Ms. Neha Ramesh Kokare, for the Petitioner.
Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent.
CORAM:
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED :
26th February 2026 PC:- 1.
Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
2.
Despite of service of notice, the Respondent is absent. 3.
Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner tenders two Affidavits of Service dated 28th January 2026 and 30th January 2026. Affidavit of service dated 28th January 2026 shows that the notice has been served on the Respondent. The Affidavit of Service dated 30th January 2026 is relevant as the same shows that an email of service which the learned Advocate - Ms. Neha Kokare
of the Petitioner sent, has not only been received by the Respondent but the same has also been replied by the Respondent. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent has been served. Despite of service, the Respondent is not appearing in the matter. Due to urgency the matter is taken up for hearing.
4.
In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 9th July 2025 passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai below Exhibit-29 in Petition No. D112 of 2021. The prayers which have been sought in the said application bearing Exhibit-29 in Petition No.D-112 of 2021, read as under :- "a.
Applicant be allowed to take child Shivraj for therapy sessions and communications training at this residence for 3 days in a week as advised by the Therapist for the medical needs of Shivraj. Cost bearing to traveling and therapy and training sessions will be taken care by the Applicant.
b.
Allowing Shivraj to stay with the Applicant who is the biological father, for 3 days with overnights in a week so that there is proper continuation of the therapy sessions wherein therapy and communication training
sessions will be scheduled and managed in a suitable and comfortable way for Shivraj.
c.
Urgently allowing the Therapists and communication coach to restart the therapy sessions that was denied by the Petitioner wife which resulted in deteriorating medical condition of Shivraj.
d.
Allowing visitation and access of children.
e.
That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order directing that the Petitioner be prevented from using the Children as a tool to pressurize the Applicant herein. f.
For ad-interim in terms of prayer clause (c). g.
Or any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper be also granted in favour of the Applicant."
5.
The learned Judge of the Family Court while rejecting the said application has given following reasons in Paragraph No.2 of order dated 9th July 2025 below Exhibit-29, which read as under :- "2] Heard the Ld. Advocate for the respondent and the petitioner in person. By order dated 06.08.2024, the petitioner was directed to give access of the child Shivraj at Children Complex. That access to continue. It is alleged that the petitioner has stopped therapy sessions, which is denied be her. The child is suffering from autism and is unable to engage in verbal communication. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is not allowing the therapy session. The petitioner is therefore directed to continue with the therapy sessions, if it is not done as on date. The child is
staying with the petitioner and therefore it is her duty to give the best possible therapy for her child. Hence, the order.
ORDER
1.
The application is rejected.
2.
The petitioner is directed to give the therapy sessions required for minor child.
3.
No order as to costs.
(Emphasis supplied) 6.
As Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the child who is a special child and had been diagnosed with autism at the young age of two and half years requires continuous medical treatment/therapist monitoring. The child also suffers periodic seizures. It is the submission of Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the child is in the custody of the mother and the mother has stopped the child's therapy sessions, therefore, the health of the child has been adversely affected. To substantiate the said contention, he has relied on the medical certificate dated 7th January 2026 issued by Dr. (Mrs.) Priyadarshini N. Gokhale, under whose care the child has been undergoing treatment. He has further relied on Affidavit dated 4th June 2025 of Shri Pramod Arun Phatarpekar, who is Self-
defense Trainer as also of the Affidavit dated 4th June 2025 of Mr. Sahadev Dhondiram Galpade, who is Physical Activity Trainer. 7.
In view of the contention raised by Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and as the allegations are very serious concerning the treatment of a special child, this Court by order dated 23rd January 2026, had directed the High Court Legal Services Authority, Mumbai to appoint two Para-Legal Volunteers to visit at the residence of Respondent and to file report in this Court on or before 30th January 2026. The Secretary of High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai filed report dated 30th January 2026 stating that the Para-Legal volunteers Mr. Ajit Ghule and Mrs. Malti Kamble visited at the residence of the Respondent on 28th January 2026 at 12.00 noon. However, the said Para-Legal Volunteers were not allowed to enter the house of the Respondent.
In view of the said report this Court by order dated 30th January 2026 directed the concerned Police Station to depute required number of Police Officials to ensure that order dated 23rd January 2026 passed by this Court is complied with.
2026 including report of Para-Legal Volunteers dated 4th February 2026. The said reports state that the Respondent-Mother has not allowed Para-Legal Volunteers to enter the premises to verify the health condition of the child in spite of Police protection. This, Court, therefore, passed order dated 24th February 2026. The said order reads as under :- "1 This Court passed the following order on 30th January 2026:
"1. Pursuant to order dated 23/01/2026, the Paralegal Volunteers visited the premises in question. However, the Paralegal Volunteers were not allowed to enter the house by the Respondent.
2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Petitioner tenders affidavit of service.
He submits that the Respondent has refused to accept the service.
3. Accordingly, the concerned Police Station is requested to depute required number of Police officials to ensure that order dated 23/01/2026 passed by this Court is complied with.
4. The paragraph 4 of the said order dated 23/01/2026 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.
"4. However, one of the contention raised is that the Respondent-wife has stopped therapy session for the child, who is suffering from autism, the High Court Legal Services Authority is requested to appoint two Para-Legal Volunteers to visit at the residence of Respondent i.e. No. 1901/1902/1904, A Wing, Chaitanya Towers, Appa Saheb Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai (Mobile No.9920280002/9820031785) and to file report in this Court on or before next date".
5. Stand over to 06/02/2026 at 3.00 p.m."
2. Pursuant to the said order dated 30th January 2026, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai has tendered a report dated 6th February 2026 enclosing report of para-legal volunteers dated 4th February 2026. The report states that the Respondent-Wife has not allowed para-legal volunteers to enter the premises to verify about the health condition of the child.
3. As the contention has been raised on behalf of the Petitioner- Husband that the Respondent-Wife has stopped treatment of child who is suffering from Autism, this Court directed appointment of two para-legal volunteers to visit at the residence
of the Respondent only for the purpose of ascertaining the health condition of the child.
4. Perusal of the report shows that although the Police were present, the Respondent has not allowed the para-legal volunteers to enter the premises in question.
5. Ms. Mulekar, learned APP submits that the Police will take steps to ensure that the order dated 23rd January 2026 read with the order dated 30th January 2026 passed by this Court is complied with.
6. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai is requested to appoint two para-legal volunteers to again visit the residence of the Respondent on 25th February 2026 at 12 noon.
7. Stand over to 26th February 2026. To be listed First on Board."
8.
Thus, it is clear that as the contention has been raised on behalf of the Petitioner-Father, that the Respondent-Mother has stopped treatment of child who is suffering from Autism, this Court directed appointment of two Para-Legal Volunteers to visit at the residence of the Respondent for the purpose of ascertaining the health condition of the child. The report submitted by the
Secretary of High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai alongwith report of Para-Legal Volunteers shows that, although, the Police were present, the Respondent had not allowed the ParaLegal Volunteers to enter the premises. The order further shows that as Ms. Mulekar, learned APP, submitted that Police would take steps to ensure that the order 23rd January 2026 read with the order dated 30th January 2026 passed by this Court is complied with, this Court requested the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai to appoint two Para-Legal Volunteers to again visit the residence of the Respondent on 25th February 2026 at 12:00 noon and the matter is kept today i.e. 26th February 2026. 9.
Pursuant to the said order dated 24th February 2026, two Para-Legal Volunteers alongwith the Police visited the residence of the Respondent on 25th February, 2026. High Court Legal Service Committee, Mumbai has submitted the report dated 26th February 2026 alongwith the report dated 25th February, 2026 of two ParaLegal Volunteers The said reports show that although, the Police were present the Respondent has not allowed the two Para-Legal Volunteers to enter the premises. The Para-Legal Volunteers found that child was inside the flat and flat was locked and they could
not enter the flat as the premises was locked and the Respondent had ran away. It is very significant to note that the father of the Respondent was present on the ground floor of the building and he stated that there is nothing in his hand and the Respondent is not listening to him. However, what is important to note that the father of the Respondent confirmed that therapy sessions of the child have been stopped by the Respondent.
10.
In view of the above, it is very relevant to note certain the factual aspects :
i.
The certificate dated 7th January 2026 has been issued by Dr.(Mrs.) Priyadarshini N. Gokhale who was conducting the therapy sessions with the child before stoppage of the same by the mother. A scanned copy of the certificate dated 7th January 2026 issued by Dr. (Mrs.) Priyadarshini N. Gokhale is reproduced herein below :
Thus, Dr. (Mrs.) Priyadarshini N. Gokhale certified that the therapy sessions of the special child have been stopped since July 2024. The said doctor has further stated that the special child also suffered seizure episodes from July 2024 till December 2025 and has lost considerable weight and hairs.
ii.
It is also required to note that the contents of the Affidavit dated 4th July 2025 of Mr. Pramod Arun Phatarpekar who is a Self-defense Trainer. The said affidavit shows that since the month of January-2025 the Self-defense and Physical Balance training sessions have been stopped. Affidavit dated 4th June 2025 of Mr. Sahadev Dhondiram Galpade who is Physical Activity Trainer has also stated that the physical activity therapies and communication training sessions have been stopped since January-2025.
11.
Thus, the material on record including the statement which the father of the Respondent has given to the two Para-Legal Volunteers appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee,
Mumbai pursuant to the order passed by this Court, shows that the therapy sessions and training sessions of the special child have been stopped since about one year. The child is a special child requiring special treatment and perusal of the record shows that the Respondent has stopped the treatment of the child. 12.
Thus, it is very clear that the observations made in the impugned order dated 9th July 2025 to the effect that there is nothing on record to show that the Respondent-Mother is not allowing the special child to attend therapy sessions and training sessions are contrary to the factual position as discussed herein above.
13.
In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons set out herein above the impugned order dated 9th July 2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai below Exhibit-29 in Petition No. D-112 of 2021 is quashed and set aside and the said Application bearing Exhibit-29 in Petition No. D-114/2021 is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c).
14.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]