The court set aside the family court order that put five restrictions on the mother.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has expressed shock at a family court order that put harsh restrictions on a mother and included discontinuation of maintenance and even jail for not taking her son to a counsellor’s appointment fixed by the husband. The court held that while the family court based its decision on the submissions by the husband and wife, it never bothered to take the view of the son who is 17-year-old and almost attaining majority. The court set aside the family court order that put five restrictions on the mother.
The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother seeking relief against the July 17, 2017 orders of the family court that included cancelling of maintenance she got from her husband, attachment of her movable and immovable properties, striking off her defence in the petition for custody of son and her arrest and handing over custody of the son to the husband.
The family court passed the order after the after the husband moved an application in the family court seeking execution of the counselling order passed by the court on July 4, 2016. The order had directed the mother to take the son to Dr Harish Shetty for a counselling session on July 6 or 7, 2016 but she had failed to do so.
When the matter came up for hearing in the HC, after both parents agreed to make their son attend a counselling session between June 2 and July 7, 2018, Justice Kulkarni expressed surprise at the order passed by the family court judge against the mother for con-compliance of its July 4, 2016 order.
“What is disturbing is the approach of the learned Judge of the Family Court to seek execution of such orders of counseling the son who at the relevant time had completed 17 years of the age and who now would be 18 years on July 7, 2018. The learned Judge of the Family Court surprisingly has thought it appropriate to “in terrorem” execute such interim orders,” said Kulkarni.
“Judge of the Family Court to put it mildly is in a serious error and mistake in exercising jurisdiction vested in him in passing such an order, completely overlooking the delicate issue before him, namely counseling of a teenager possessing outstanding understanding and high academic qualities,” said Justice Kulkarni before setting aside the family court order.
Order put five restrictions on the woman – discontinuation of maintenance from husband, attachment of movable and immovable properties, striking off her defence in the petition for custody of son, arrest and handing over custody of son to husband.