Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1915 (GUJ)

Dineshbhai Khodabhai Patel v. Sushilaben Dineshbhai Patel D/o Ghusabhai Rabari (Baliya)

2016-09-02

Z.K.SAIYED

body2016
ORDER: Z.K SAIYED, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: (A) Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to proceed with/consider the application made by the petitioner at Annexure-A to the present petition before the Learned Principal Civil Judge at Sanand and give the custody of the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in the interest of justice. (B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship will be pleased to allow the petitioner to meet his son who is respondent no. 2 herein as well as fix the time to meet the respondent no. 2 on every week or thinks fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. (C) Your Lordship be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to produce the respondent no. 2 before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. (D) Your Lordship be pleased to direct the expedite the hearing of the application at Annexure-A to the present petition which had been preferred before the Learned Principle Civil Judge at Sanand, in the interest of Justice. (E) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition. (F) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted. 2. The brief facts of the present petition are as under: 2.1 That the petitioner had got married with respondent no. 1 before ten years. Initially, the marriage life of the petitioner and respondent no.1 was sailing smoothly. Out of the said wedlock, they have got two sons. It is submitted that one son had expired and respondent no. 2 is aged about 7 years. It is submitted that because of internal misunderstanding and instigation by the in-laws of the petitioner, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 are residing separately since 2010. 2.2 The respondent no. 1 had preferred an application for maintenance being Criminal Misc. Application NO. 88/2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihor. The petitioner had appeared and filed his reply. After completion of hearing of both the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihor has passed a detailed final order. 2 are residing separately since 2010. 2.2 The respondent no. 1 had preferred an application for maintenance being Criminal Misc. Application NO. 88/2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihor. The petitioner had appeared and filed his reply. After completion of hearing of both the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sihor has passed a detailed final order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 127/2013 before the learned District Court, Bhavnagar wherein respondent no. 1 had appeared and filed her reply. The petitioner had made several efforts to settle the dispute and also filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said application, the respondent no. 1 has filed her written statement denying to reside with the petitioner along with the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has never been allowed to meet his son as well as even to see his son. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application before the concerned Civil Court, but the same is pending for decision. The petitioner has also preferred an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand under section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also the same is pending for decision. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Amit Joshi for the petitioner states that the said application is pending before learned Principle Civil Judge, Sanand since two years. He submits that the trial court may be directed to consider and decide the said application as expeditiously as possible. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order would meet the end of justice. 6. The concerned Civil Court shall decide and disposed of the application preferred by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.