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. 3Both parties jointly sought expeditious disposal of those applications
¶ 1 · p. 2By 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. 2–302Issues
i.1. Whether the Petitioner-husband should be granted access to the minor child on the agreed terms
¶ 3 · pp. 2–3ii.2. Whether the Family Court should be requested to decide the parties’ pending guardianship and maintenance applications expeditiously
¶ 4 · p. 303Law 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. 3The 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. 2–3Provisions 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. 2–3In 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. 2–3Original Court PDF
Siddharth Vasant BandrivsManasi Dahananjay Gadekar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
