Abhishek Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5713 OF 2025 Abhishek Chavan ... Petitioner

Versus

Gauri Abhishek Chavan ... Respondent ...

Mr. J. K. Shah i/b R. J. Law, for the Petitioner. Mr. Akshay A. Kulkarni, for the Respondent.

...

CORAM

: MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : 20th JUNE, 2025 P.C.:

1.

The matter is circulated for return of Bank Guarantee. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, pursuant to the order dated 6th May, 2025 the respondent has submitted the Bank Guarantee before this Court on 13th May, 2025. He further submits that the Writ Petition has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6th May, 2025. However, Bank Guarantee still remains in this Court, therefore, he is seeking return of the Bank Guarantee.

2.

Considering the very fact, the office to verify and give its remark at 3:00 p.m.

3.

Kept back the matter till 3:00 p.m.

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date:

2025.06.23 11:24:36 +0530 REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

At 3:00 p.m.

4.

The present Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 6th May, 2025. While allowing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, dated 12th March, 2025, the respondent-wife was permitted to take the minor child from India to Vietnam as per the itinerary from 15th May, 2025 to 25th May, 2025. However, a condition of giving Bank Guarantee was imposed on the wife in clause (ii) of para 7 of the said order. It was further stipulated that the respondent-wife shall deposit her passport immediately with the learned Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai after completion of the said tour of Vietnam.

5.

The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that according to the order passed by this Court the vacation access is complete and the respondent-wife has returned from Vietnam to India and she has also deposited her passport according to the order passed by this Court before the Family Court, Bandra. 6.

Considering that the purpose of the order dated 6th May, 2025 has served its purpose, the Bank Guarantee filed by the respondent-wife in this Court may kindly be directed to be returned to the respondent-wife. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the position.

7.

Accordingly, the Bank Guarantee is directed to be returned to the respondent.

8.

Accordingly, motion is disposed of.

( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )