Bombay High Court
PUNEETA AGRAWAL (PUNEETA SHARMA)versusRAVI AGRAWAL
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Condition No.7 imposed by the Family Court restricting removal of the child is quashed and set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Puneeta Agrawal, filed a civil writ petition challenging Condition No.7 imposed by the Family Court, Mumbai, which prohibited both parties from removing their child from the court's jurisdiction or traveling abroad without prior permission. The respondent, Ravi Agrawal, contested the order, seeking its quash. The High Court examined the validity of the restriction on the child's movement. Justice Shivkumar Dige held that the condition was not legally sustainable and ordered it to be set aside. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, the condition was quashed, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether Condition No.7 restricting removal of the child from the jurisdiction of the Family Court or travel abroad without permission is valid and enforceable.
Subjects
- Family Law
- Child Custody
- Jurisdiction
- Removal of Child
- Family Court Order
- Writ Petition
Judgment
2-WP-9005-2023 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2023
Puneeta Agrawal (Puneeta Sharma) ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Ravi Agrawal ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally
signed by
Advocate Aseem Naphade a/w. Ms. Vilasini Balasubramanian, for
SONALI SONALI
SATISH
KILAJE
SATISH
KILAJE
Date:
2026.08.24
10:58:53
Petitioner.
+0530
Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w. Anshu Agrawal, Mr. Bhushan Shinde and Mr.
Pradyumna Agrawwal i/b. Pushpa Ganediwala & Co., for Respondent.
Advocate Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for the State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the respondent and learned AGP.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to the Condition No.7 imposed
by the learned Family Judge, Mumbai, below Exhibit-18 i.e. “Neither
petitioner nor respondent shall remove the child out of jurisdiction of
Family Court or go abroad without prior permission of Family Court”.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned
order may be quashed.
4. On the statement of learned counsel for the respondent, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate order be passed.
Page 1 of 2
2-WP-9005-2023 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
5. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, I pass
following order :
ORDER
(i) Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) Condition No.7 imposed by the learned Family Court,
Mumbai, by order dated 15.07.2023 that “Neither
petitioner nor respondent shall remove the child out of
jurisdiction of Family Court or go abroad without prior
permission of Family Court” is hereby quashed and set
aside.
6. Writ Petition is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…