Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1937/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1937 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
======================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
TEJAS
MADHUSUDAN KOTHARI - Applicant(s)
Versus
ASHWINBHAI
KRUSHNDAS SHAH & 18 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 18.
- for
Respondent(s) : 0.0.0
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.
KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM
N.MEHTA
Date
: 18/11/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1.
By way of filing of this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to provide custody
of his minor child with immediate effect who, at present, is in the
custody of his mother viz. Pinkalben who is residing with her father.
2.
This Court vide order dated 12.10.2010 adjourned the matter to
enable the petitioner-party-in-person to annex the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara in application
filed by him under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. Uptil now, copy of the said order has not been produced by the
petitioner before this Court. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated
27.20.2010, upon statement made by the petitioner/party-in-person,
who was desirous to see wife and know the whereabouts of his son and
if they are in happy condition, he would offer Rs.20,000/- by way of
gift to them and he is ready to deposit the said amount of
Rs.20,000/- latest by 28th October, 2010.
3.
On condition, this Court issued Notice to the respondent No.18
making it returnable on 18th November, 2010. However,
Registry has issued Notice to respondent without being deposited the
amount as aforesaid.
4.
Therefore, we direct the Registrar (Judicial) to explain as to why
Notice has been issued without there being deposit of Rs.20,000/-, by
way of condition precedent, for issuance of Notice. Admittedly the
said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner.
5.
Today when the matter is called out, petitioner, who is
party-in-person, is not present before the Court whereas Pinkalben,
wife of the petitioner is present before the Court along with her
father and uncle. She states that the male child named Aumshree, who
is aged about 5 years, is in her custody since last 1 ½
years, who is studying at Vidyani school.
6.
In view of the above, petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
7.
Registry is directed to place the matter on 25.10.2010 along with
explanation as to why Notice has been issued without the amount of
Rs.20,000/- deposited by the petitioner.
(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA,
J.)
Amit
Top