IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2109 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.2109 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.2109 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1919 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.1919 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.1919 OF 2004 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2004 Dr.Tejinder Kaur Sahi .. Petitioner V/s Mr.Paramjeet Singh Sahi & Ors. .. Respondents And Gurmeet Kaur Sahi .. Applicant/ Intervenor AND AND AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION APPLICATION APPLICATION NO.3032 OF 2004 NO.3032 OF 2004 NO.3032 OF 2004 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2004 Dr.Tejinder Kaur Sahi .. Petitioner (Applicant) V/s Mr.Paramjeet Singh Sahi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nitin Raut for the Applicants in Cri.Application Nos.2109/2004 & 1919/2004. Mr.Subodh S.Desai for the Applicant in Cri.Application No.3032/2004. Ms.R.R.Dhuru for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. Ms.P.H.Kantharia, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & H.L.GOKHALE & H.L.GOKHALE & S.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 31.8.2004. : 31.8.2004. : 31.8.2004. P.C.: 1. The entire controversy in the matter is with respect to the efforts of the daughter to meet her mother who is staying with her brothers. The main petition was disposed of by an order of the Division Bench dated 29th April, 2004 to which one of us (S.Radhakrishnan, J.) was a party. Certain understanding was arrived at, at that stage, but it appears that subsequently some problem or the other kept on cropping up and therefore the above mentioned three applications were moved from time to time. (2) 2. When the Application No.2109 of 2004 came before the Division Bench, by an order dated 17.8.2004 to which one of us (H.L.Gokhale,J.) was a party, another consent arrangement was recorded. Once more there were problems and the applications were thereafter heard on 24.8.2004. As per the order passed on 24.8.2004, the daughter was permitted to meet the mother between 05.30 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. on Sunday 29th August, 2004 and the dauther was also permitted to take with her one lady police constable in plain clothes. We are told that, fortunately on that day i.e.Sunday 29.8.2004, a peaceful meeting has taken place. Mr.Desai, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner-daughter states that the daughter still has a grievance that some Tape Recorder was kept in that room where the meeting took place, to record the conversation between the daughter and the mother. Ms.Dhuru the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1-brother denies that any such Tape Recorder was kept and assures that hereafter no such Tape Recorder will be kept in that room at the time when the dauther will visit there to meet her mother. She however states that some Video Cameras are fixed in the entire room, inasmuch as the business of the brother is to provide security. Let those cameras remain there. We are not directing to remove those cameras, however, we make it clear that there will not be any Tape Recorder when the daughter will go for visits to meet her mother. We hope that hereafter the visit of the daughter will continue on every Sunday between 05.30 p.m. to 07.00 p.m.to meet her mother. No further directions are required. (3) 3. All three applications stand disposed of accordingly. (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)