Bombay High Court

VINOD BABRUWAN HULSUREversusUDHAVRAO PANDURANG GAMBHIRE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The respondent shall make the petitioner’s minor daughter available for telephonic conversation daily between 8 pm and 9 pm.

Summary

The petitioner, Vinod Babruwan Hulsure, sought uninterrupted daily telephonic access to his minor daughter, who was residing with her maternal grandfather (the respondent) after the death of his wife. The petitioner alleged that despite a prior understanding and a Family Court order, the respondent was obstructing the calls. The respondent offered to allow calls between 8:00 pm and 9:00 pm daily, assuring no interference. The court, without delving into the merits, recorded the respondent's assurance and ordered that the daughter be made available for telephonic conversation during the specified hour. The petition was partly allowed, directing the respondent to comply, and the parties were advised to approach the trial court when the daughter attains majority.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent is obligated to permit the petitioner uninterrupted daily telephonic communication with his minor daughter during a specified time.

Subjects

family law
parental access
minor child
telephonic communication
writ petition
custody
court order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42810



                                                                        4-wp6484.2023


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 6484 OF 2023

                                  Vinod Babruwan Hulsure
                                          VERSUS
             The State Of Maharashtra Through The District Collector And Another

                                                ----
            Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr.Pravin G. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1
                                                ----

                                       CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                       DATE  :      SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
            ORDER :-

                         The only issue argued before this court in this matter is

            regarding the disturbance caused by the respondent between the

            petitioner’s talks with his minor daughter on telephone/mobile phone.


            2.           Mr.Surve, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit

            that the petitioner had marital discord with his wife Kavita (now

            deceased) due to which she had separated from him. She even carried

            away her minor daughter to her parental house. In the meantime the

            wife Kavita died and minor daughter is residing with her maternal

            grand-father i.e. respondent.    It is the contention that despite there

            had been understanding between the parties before the court

            that the    petitioner   will   have   daily telephonic access   to   his

            daughter during a specific period the respondents did not allow such
                                         2                           4-wp6484



telephonic conversation for this or that reason. It is submitted that

the petitioner accordingly put his grievance before the Family Court.

However the same came to be turned down.                       Hence, the

petitioner/father   has   filed   this   petition   seeking   uninterrupted

conversation with his minor daughter.


3.          After heaving heard both sides for a considerable time,

this court put a query to learned advocate for the respondents as to

which time would be convenient during which the petitioner can

conveniently talk with his minor daughter on phone.             To this, on

instructions, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the

petitioner can call his daughter during 08.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m.

daily. He submits that the call shall neither be interrupted nor the

respondent shall cause any hindrance or obstructions during the said

calls.


4.          Mr.Surve, learned advocate for the petitioner cited

previous instances contending that on the last occasions, the

respondent has not adhered to his word and even the order passed

by this court for which the petitioner had to produce before the court

the transcription of the calls. Be that as it may.
                                    3                            4-wp6484



5.         Considering the relation between the parties and the

issue involved, without going into the merit of the matter, I deem it

appropriate to take on record the assurance given by the respondent

that he shall make available the petitioner's minor daughter for

telephonic conversation with the petitioner daily during 08.00 p.m.

and 09.00 p.m.


6.         Hence, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. The

respondent shall make available the petitioner's minor daughter for

telephonic conversation daily during 08.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m.


7.         Learned advocates appearing for both sides submit that

the minor daughter will soon attain the age of 18 years and thereby

cease to be a minor. In view of the same, the parties may take

appropriate recourse before the Trial Court.


8.         The Trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing of

Petition No. D-06/2021




                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..


KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…