-: 1 :- wp-5443/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5443 OF 2010 Mrs. Bhavana K. Manera. ..Petitioner. Versus Keru R. Manera. ..Respondent Mr. H. S. Deshpande for the petitioner. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 14, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Desphande, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition takes exception to the orders dated 19th June 2010 and 21st June 2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Thane. By the first order dated 19th June 2010, respondent’s application for restoration of the custody of minor son Harsh was allowed. By the order dated 21st June 2010, respondent was directed to deposit police bandobast charges of police party so as to pass necessary orders regarding the police help. 2. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No.248 of 2009 under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of minor son Harsh on 20th August 2009. The petitioner srp -: 2 :- wp-5443/10 also filed an application Exhibit-14 for access of minor son Harsh on Saturday and Sunday as well as in the Diwali vacation. This application was partly allowed by the order dated 29th September 2009 and the respondent was directed to permit the petitioner to meet her child on every Saturday and Sunday and in Diwali holidays. 3. It is the case of respondent that he complied with the above order dated 29th September 2009 and in compliance of the said order he on 3rd April 2010 gave access of minor son to the petitioner in the morning at 10.30 a.m. at her residence. However, the petitioner refused to hand over back the custody of minor son Harsh to him in the evening. The petitioner thereafter kept Harsh at her parents’ residence at Bhiwandi and refused to give him back. In these circumstances, Application Exhibit-37 came to be filed for restoration of the custody and the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court by the order dated 19th June 2010 allowed this application. The subsequent order dated 21st June 2010 is a consequential order since the petitioner has not complied with the order of restoration of custody to the respondent. 4. The petitioner's application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of minor son-Harsh is pending before the Court. Admittedly, the parties are residing separately and the custody of minor son at the time of filing of the aforesaid application was with the -: 3 :- wp-5443/10 respondent. Minor son–Harsh is admitted by the respondent in a school. The petitioner filed an application for interim access and that application was allowed on 29th September 2009. The petitioner under the guise of access cannot keep custody of minor son Harsh with herself, moreso when her application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody is pending before the Court. In these facts and circumstances, I find that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court was justified in passing the impugned order. -: O R D E R :- (1) Writ petition is dismissed. (2) It is clarified that the order dated 20th September 2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 248 of 2009 [ Petition No. D-32 of 2010] is not disturbed. (3) The Family Court shall endevour to dispose of the petitioner's above Criminal Misc. Application as expeditiously as possible. (R.V. MORE, J.)