Bombay High Court
Shardul PujariversusRevati Pujari
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N R BORKAR
Holding
The Court declined to grant the interim injunction, holding that the serious allegations of forcible removal and potential non‑return of the child outweigh the petitioner's request.
Summary
The father (Petitioner) filed an interim application seeking a temporary order allowing his daughter, Mihika, to travel to the United States for a ceremony, with a condition that she return to India by a specified date. The mother (Respondent) opposed, alleging that the father had previously taken the child away forcibly and that the child, being a US citizen, might not be returned. The mother also filed a petition under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody, claiming the father’s actions were high‑handed and intended to permanently remove the child from India. The Court, after hearing counsel, found the allegations serious and was not persuaded to grant the requested permission. Consequently, the interim application was rejected, denying the temporary injunction to take the child abroad.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, should be granted to permit the child’s travel abroad pending the main custody petition?
- Whether the allegations of forcible removal and intent to permanently keep the child outside India justify denying the interim injunction?
Legislation cited
- Guardians and Wards Act — s. 25, 7
Subjects
- child custody
- interim injunction
- Guardians and Wards Act
- international travel
- forced removal
- temporary relief
Judgment
1 904-IA 3191-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3191 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4088 OF 2025
Shardul Pujari … Applicant
In the matter between
Shardul Pujari … Petitioner
Vs.
Revati Pujari … Respondent
-----
Mr. Anish Shahapurkar i/by Gaurav Sinha for the Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan i/by Mrinal Shelar for the Respondent.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 23RD APRIL 2026
P.C. :
1. By this Interim Application, the Petitioner-Father seeks the following
reliefs:
“(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Civil Writ Petition
No.4088 of 2025, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue temporary
order and injunction thereby permitting the Applicant to take the
Child, Ms. Mihika Shardul Pujari, to the United States of America for
the Griha Pravesh and Kanya Pujan ceremony scheduled on 18th May
2026 at Poway, California, on such terms and conditions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, including directions for return
of the Child to India by 10th June 2026 (or any other date fixed by
this Hon’ble Court);
(b) Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) above be granted;
(c) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the
case may require be passed.”
Mugdha 1 of 3
2 904-IA 3191-26.doc
2. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant-Father and Learned
Counsel for the Respondent-Mother.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Father submits that though the
apprehension of the Respondent that the child would not be brought back
to India, if permission as sought is granted is not valid, still to allay the
said apprehension, appropriate condition be imposed.
4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Mother
submits that the child was forcibly taken away from the custody of the
Respondent-Mother. It is submitted that the child is a US citizen and thus
if the permission as sought is granted, then the child would not be brought
to India.
5. The Respondent-Mother in her application filed under Section 7
read with 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act before the Family Court for
the custody of the child, has alleged as follows:
“17. On 13/04/2023 the Petitioner had gone out to inquire about her
father’s treatment in a hospital, who was a cancer patient. Mihika was
at home with her grandparents. The Respondent suddenly without any
notice came to Petitioner’s residence. The Petitioner’s mother was
getting Mihika ready for school. The Respondent’s mother went to the
kitchen to get water and her father asked Respondent to be seated. The
Respondent within a couple of minute lifted Mihika and ran outside
and immediately started car and took away the Mihika from
Petitioner’s custody. The Petitioner’s father being a cancer patient and
physically was unable to stop him or to run after him. Thus
Respondent forcefully and highhandedly without Petitioner’s consent
removed the Mihika from her custody. Thereafter the Respondent
switched off his phone and refused to communicate with the Petitioner.
The Respondent deliberately and intentionally separated daughter
from Petitioner mother and with an intention to take her away
permanently out of India and to cause wrongful loss pain and suffering
to the Petitioner and the minor daughter.”
Mugdha 2 of 3
3 904-IA 3191-26.doc
6. In view of the above allegations, I am not inclined to grant the
permission as sought.
7. The Interim Application is therefore rejected.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Mugdha 3 of 3
Checking your session…