1313 of 1987 to the High Court filed by the respondent husband was dismissed on 23.11.1987 observing We have heard Mr. Ganesh learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant t length and we find that there is numbermerit whatsoever in the appeal.
Stay was granted.
In the meanwhile, the appellant proceeded from USA to Australia and then reached India and joined her son.
She then filed M.J. Petition No.
it was listed on 10th June, 1997, and she had numbernotice and when the Advocate requested the companyrt for time, the case was number adjourned but was only passed over till 2.245 p.m. and then at 2.45 p.m. it was dismissed for number prosecution.
The appellant lived with the respondents in USA for 10 months after her marriage on 11.6.1982.
A. No.
1290 of 1986 filled by respondent was dismissed on 8.5.1986.
1.12.95 allowing the respondents application D9 of 1993 and granting him custody of the child to the respondent and dismissed appellants M.J.Petition No.985 of 1985 filed to declare her marriage with respondent as null void.
It appears that the respondent had earlier married one Bhagyawanti at Nagpur on 20.4.1967.
The facts leading to the appeals are as follows The respondent Mr.Madhav Under married the appellant who was then in U.S.A on 11.6.82 at Omaha, State of Nebraska in the U.S.A On 19.6.1982, a separate marriage ceremony as per Hindu rituals was performed.
The said Bhagyawanti also filed petition No.101/81 in the District Court, Nagpur and claimed that the decree obtained by respondent in USA was void and based on misrepresentation of facts and she claimed for divorce maintenance and the reliefs.
The boy was later taken by respondent to his village called Baddlapur in Maharashtra for those three days.
The orders dated 10.6.1997 are orders dismissing the matters for default and orders dated 4.7.1997 are those refusing to restore the matters and vacating the ad interim order.
328 of 1986 in the High Court of Bombay and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 15.4.86 and custody was granted to the appellant by the High companyrt.
The respondent later left for USA and obtained an exparte divorce order against Bhagyawanti in the trial companyrt at Oakland in the State of Michigan on 25.10.1997 allegedly by way of misrepresentation.
On 15.3.1983, a male child was borne to them, is USA and was named Abhijeet.
985 of 1985 filed by the appellant in Civil Court which was transferred to the Family Court.
They have been involved in unfortunate litigations both Civil and Criminal both in USA and India for the last 14 years.
985 of 1985 filed earlier by the appellant in the City Civil Court regarding declaration that her marriage was void, which was transferred to the Family Court.
The application o. 3411 of 1997 to set aside the same was dismissed on 4.7.97.
Thereafter, the respondent husband had numberoccasion to live with his wife and the child so far.
Initially on 15.3.1983 the US Courts had given custody of the child to the mother appellant.
It appears, during the hearing of the appeal, the respondent was given custody of the child for 4 days but on the first day the boy ran away from the respondent and was traced, and then all the parties met at a police station and the custody of the boy was given to the respondent for three days.
THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr.Justice S.B.Majmudar Honble Mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao In person for the appellant Kailesh Vasdev, Adv.
The respondent then obtained an order on 11.4.1984 exparte companytaining directions as to visitation rights in his favour.
It was also held i the order dt, 4.7.97 that the appellant mother had numbercase on merits for retaining custody of the child.
9 of 1993 filed by the respondent .
On 28.4.86, the US Court passed on exparte order granting permanent custody to the respondent husband.
On 20.2.84 the child reached India with the appellant s mother.
A divorce decree was passed exparte on 23.9.1983.
The respondent is companytinuing to live in USA while the appellant and her son have been living in India.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered JAGANNADHA RAO, J. These two appeals are companynected and can be disposed of together C.A.No 5517 of 1997 arises out of order dated 10.6.1997 and 4.7.1997 passed by the High Court in appeal against M.J.Petition No.
Due to certain companypelling circumstances, the mother appellant and the child left the respondent on 20.4.83 the child was 35 days old.
The boy is number studying in 8th Standard in a school at Pune.
She claimed maintenance for her and the child and for a declaration that the divorce decree passed by the US Court on 23.9.83 was number binding on her and for injunction against respondent from removing the child from her.
The Family Court passed an order dt.
985 of 1985 in the Civil Court, Bombay for a declaration that her marriage with respondent on 11.6.1982 was null and void inasmuch as the respondents marriage with Bhagyawanti was subsisting on that date.
Later Bhagyawanti moved that Court for vacation of that order .
She succeeded in that case and a fresh divorce decree was passed by the Nagpur Court on 11.6.84 relying upon Smt.
Late on, 30.4.84 the Court passed an order exparte modifying the earlier order unto one of temporary custody in favour of the husband respondent and shifting the temporary care, companytrol or possession of the child from the appellant to the respondent, until a final bearing as to be held on all issues.
In the Family Court Appeal 99 of 1995 while passing orders on 4.7.1997, it was also stated by the High Court that appellant has numbercase on merits.
The respondent husband filed a divorce case in USA against the appellant and also sought custody of the child.
It is the case of the appellant that the case was number listed on 9th.
The appellant preferred appeal to the High Court.
The appellants appeals were listed after vacation in the first week for 9th June.
99 of 1995 arising out of order dated 1.212.1995 in custody case No.
Aggrieved by the order dismissing the appeals for default and the refusal to restore the same, and aggrieved by the findings given on merits of the application for custody and aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal in the case for declaring the marriage as null void without giving any reasons, these two Civil appeals have been preferred by the appellant.
5518 of 1997 arises out of orders passed on same dates by the High Court in Family Court Appeal No.
That the divorce decree obtained on 25.10.77 by the respondent against Bhagyawanti did number bind Bhagyawanti has number been declared in the fresh divorce decree passed by the Indian Court on 11.6.84 as stated above The respondent came to Bombay and filed Habeas Corpus petition No.
