Amin Mannakurashi v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. P.R. Pandey for the Petitioner Ms U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the Respondent CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1 In substance the grievance of the petitioner is for obtaining custody of his daughter Ms. Iram Saba Amin Qureshi. The petitioner’s application under Section 39 of the Guardian and Wards Act came to be rejected by the Family Court as none appeared on the date when the matter was taken up for hearing. The petitioner has challenged the said order by this Writ Petition. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may direct the Family Court, Mumbai to restore the Petition No. D-15 of 2008, which has been dismissed in default by order dated 30-3-2009. The 2 petitioner may file application for restoration in the Family Court or may prefer the appeal in the matter rather than prosecuting this Criminal Writ Petition. Therefore, we dismiss this Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him under the law. A.A. SAYED J. J.N. PATEL, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theGuardian and Wards Act — s. 39.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Dec 2009. The bench was N PATEL, A A SAYED, A A SAYED N PATEL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.