AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1700 OF 2009 Shivprasad s/o. Nagorao Kale ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Hemant Surve for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Atmaram Y. Pandule for respondent 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner’s grievance is that his wife i.e. respondent 3 has taken away his children viz. Abhijit and Ankita, aged about 13 and 11 years respectively and their whereabouts are not known. According to the petitioner, the Principal of Carmel Convent High School, Badlapur, where the children were admitted, has informed him that AJN 2 since 22/6/2009, the children are not attending the school. 2. Pursuant to the directions issued by us on 2/7/2009, police officers from Badlapur Police Station have produced the two children in our court. Respondent 3 is also present in our court. 3. It appears that there is some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent 3. On 10/10/2007, learned Single Judge of this court (R.M. Savant, J.) has passed an order in terms of the minutes of the settlement entered into between the petitioner and respondent 3. Term 1 of the settlement reads as follows: “That, the respondent no.2 conditionally delivers the possession of the two children namely Abhijit and Ankita to the petitioner.” Respondent 2 therein is respondent 3 herein. The conditions are set out in the minutes of the settlement. AJN 3 To the petition, the petitioner has annexed copy of ex- parte order dated 8/6/2009 passed by the District Judge, Thane, in C.M.A. No.92 of 2009. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to hand over custody of the children to respondent 3. From a bare reading of the said order, it is clear that learned District Judge was not aware of the order dated 10/10/2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this court. This impression of our’s is confirmed when we perused the application. The application is filed on 17/3/2009. Not a word is stated in that application about order dated 10/10/2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this court. If this order was brought to the notice of learned District Judge, the learned District Judge would not have passed ex-parte order dated 8/6/2009. In view of order dated 10/10/2007 passed by learned Single Judge any variation in the order of custody could have been made only by making an application to this court. 4. We, however, do not want to dilate on this aspect because we are concerned here with the production of the AJN 4 children in our court. The children are produced in our court, today. They are safe. It appears that respondent 3 has admitted them in a school at Pune. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, that the children shall stay with respondent 3 at Pune and respondent 3 shall produce them in the District Court, Thane on 17/7/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will be moving the District Court, Thane for vacating order dated 8/6/2009. In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition by permitting respondent 3 to take the children to Pune and with a direction to her to produce them in the District Court, Thane on 17/7/2009. Further appropriate orders may be taken from the District Court, Thane. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]