Bombay High CourtFamily LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

By Consent, Bombay HC Allows Father 3-Hour Bhaubij Access To 1½-Year-Old Son At Mother’s Home

Siddharth Vasant Bandriv.Manasi Dahananjay Gadekar

By Consent, Bombay HC Allows Father 3-Hour Bhaubij Access To 1½-Year-Old Son At Mother’s Home. Siddharth Vasant Bandri vs Manasi Dahananjay Gadekar. Bombay High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

01Facts

The Respondent-wife’s divorce petition was pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, along with the parties’ applications under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Respondent-wife’s maintenance application

¶ 4 · p. 3

Both parties jointly sought expeditious disposal of those applications

¶ 1 · p. 2

By consent, they also agreed that the Petitioner-husband would have unrestricted access to their 1½-year-old child at the Respondent-wife’s residence on 11 November 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; he could be accompanied only by his seven-year-old niece

¶ 3 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Petitioner-husband should be granted access to the minor child on the agreed terms

¶ 3 · pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether the Family Court should be requested to decide the parties’ pending guardianship and maintenance applications expeditiously

¶ 4 · p. 3

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as the provisions under which the parties’ respective applications were pending

¶ 4 · p. 3

The judgment states no substantive legal test, statutory provision governing the maintenance application, or precedent; the relief was resolved on the parties’ consent

¶ 1, 3–4 · pp. 2–3

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 7Section 25

04Reasoning

The parties had jointly agreed to the child-access arrangement and sought prompt disposal of their pending applications.

¶ 1, 3–4 · pp. 2–3

In light of that consensus, the Court ordered access on the agreed date, time, location, and accompaniment conditions, and requested the Family Court to decide the pending applications as expeditiously as possible, subject to its caseload

¶ 3–4 · pp. 2–3
Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF

Siddharth Vasant BandrivsManasi Dahananjay Gadekar

Bombay High Court · November 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment