NAHIDA RISHAD COOPER Vs. MR. RISHAD DARAYAS COOPER
LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-20
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 06,2017

Nahida Rishad Cooper Appellant
VERSUS
Mr. Rishad Darayas Cooper Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SARANG V.KOTWAL,J. - (1.) The Appellant is the original Plaintiff in Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017 before the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court at Bombay, which is the High Court. The Appellant is the wife of the Respondent (original Defendant) herein. They have a son named Marc.
(2.) The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 22/09/2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (R. G. Ketkar, J.) in Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017 in the said Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the Appellant's prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion No.6 of 2017. The Appellant, by the said prayer, had prayed that till the hearing and final disposal of the Parsi Suit No.8 of 2017, the Respondent - original Defendant be restrained from taking forcible physical custody of their minor son Marc. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to decide the question of custody of Marc during the pendency of the suit on certain terms, which included that the Appellant should reside at Pune with Marc at either of the properties mentioned in clause (2) of the operative part of the order and in case she was not so willing, she was directed to hand over the custody of Marc to the Respondent herein immediately. It was further made clear that the observations made in the said order were prima-facie and tentative and were made only for the purpose of considering prayer clause (a) of the said Notice of Motion and that the learned Trial Judge at Pune should decide the pending applications and the suit before him on their own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in the said order.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has in some detail, referred to the chronology of dates and events. We, therefore, do no propose to repeat the same save and except the facts which are mentioned hereinafter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.