JULIE JAYESH SHAH Vs. JAYESH TRILOK KUMAR SHAH (BOMBAY)
LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-293
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 22,2018

Julie Jayesh Shah Appellant
VERSUS
Jayesh Trilok Kumar Shah (Bombay) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G. S. Kulkarni, J. - (1.) In this Petition, the petitioner-wife is before this Court challenging the order dated 17th July, 2017 of the learned Judge, Family Court No.2 at Mumbai, which was passed to execute an earlier order dated 4 July 2016. By the said order dated 4th July, 2016, the Family Court directed the respondent-father to take appointment of Dr. Harish Shetty Child Psychologist on 6th or 7th July, 2016 and communicate the same to the respondent-mother who was directed to take son Parshva (who would attain majority in July 2018), to the Psychologist at the appointed time and place. The Child Psychologist was requested to do the needful and submit a report. Thereafter, an application dated 12th July, 2016 was moved by the respondent below Exhibit 7 which was an application to execute the said order dated 4th July, 2016, making a prayer for an appropriate direction so as to ensure that the child Prashva is taken for counseling. On this application, the impugned order dated 17th July, 2017 is passed whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court has directed as under:- "Therefore, the court is required to take coercive steps, so that the application will not become infructuous by efflux of time. In such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the Judgment Debtor is not ready to make any affirmative statement before the court and if she does not follow the order the court will be constrained to execute the order firstly by cancelling the maintenance of the Judgment Debtor, secondly by attachment of her movable properties, thirdly by attachment of her immovable properties, fourthly by striking off her defence in Petition No.D-35/2012 and fifthly her arrest and shifting custody of the child to the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor shall note and act accordingly".
(2.) On this background, the petitioner-wife is before this Court assailing the above orders. This Court had time to time taken up this Writ Petition. By an order dated 4th August, 2017, this Court by consent of the parties had appointed Aekta Brahmbhatt, Child Psychologist and Counsellor to interview the child and submit report to this Court in a sealed packet. The impugned order dated 17th July, 2017 was stayed.
(3.) Thereafter, on 29th August, 2017, this Court considered interim report of the said Counsellor and recorded the statement made on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner would take the son to the Counsellor on the scheduled dates without any hesitation. Her statement was accepted and on the request of the Counsellor, this Petition was adjourned to 31st October, 2017.;


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