IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10982 OF 2024 Shahna Garg Advani ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 25948 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10982 OF 2024 __________

Mr. Vikram Deshmukh i/b. MS Legal for Petitioner. Mr. B.V. Holambe Patil, APP for State/Respondent.

Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate (appeared through V.C.) a/w. Ms. Gunjan Mangla, Pooja Jalan and Jimi Jakhadi for the Respondent No.2.

__________

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 17 APRIL 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 28 APRIL 2025 ORDER: (Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vikram Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Holambe-Patil, learned APP for the State and Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

VINOD BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Date: 2025.04.28

2. This is yet another case where the child is an innocent victim in the bitter battle between his own parents. The petition is filed by the mother of a 10 year old child. The Petition is filed for directing the Respondent No.2-father of the child to produce the child before the Court and with further directions to restore the custody of the child with the Petitioner.

3. The parties, in the background of their unending grievances with each other, have filed voluminous pleadings and counter pleadings. However, basic facts as reflected from the petition are as follows:

The Petitioner got married with the Respondent No.2 on 28.11.2012 and started residing with him in their matrimonial house at Woodlands Apartment, Peddar Road, Mumbai. The Respondent No.2 had family business that runs a hotel/resort in Goa. The couple shifted to Goa. They were blessed with a baby boy on 14.01.2015, who is the innocent victim in this case. The child was born in USA at the instance of the Respondent No.2 as he wished that the minor child should hold an American passport.

There are other allegations in the petition against the Respondent No.2 regarding his other relationships. There are allegations that, even the Respondent No.2’s family illtreated the Petitioner and her family. For better prospects in education for the minor child, the Petitioner decided to shift back to Mumbai. It was felt necessary that the matrimonial house needed renovation and, therefore, the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 and their child shifted to a house taken on leave and license basis. In February 2024, the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent No.2 had terminated the lease of that house a year earlier by writing to the landlord, but the Petitioner was not informed about the same by the Respondent No.2. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2’s mother had categorically told her that the Petitioner was not welcome in the matrimonial house. On 25.03.2024, the Petitioner went to New York to meet the Respondent No.2’s brother to find a solution for her matrimonial discord. She returned to Mumbai on 08.04.2024. She found that the Respondent No.2 had employed a security guard who used to stay in the house. He had planted 8 cameras in the house. It is mentioned in the petition that the Respondent No.2 deceitfully obtained the child’s passport from the Petitioner. On 28.04.2024, when the Petitioner’s mother had come to Mumbai from Delhi, the Respondent No.2 created a scene and made his displeasure known. The Respondent No.2 started tutoring the child with negative emotions against the Petitioner and her family. It is further mentioned that, on 30.04.2024, the Petitioner approached N.M.Joshi Marg police station with a complaint under sections 341, 354, 498A and 506 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. and U/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police called the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 for a joint meeting. On 30.04.2024, the Respondent No.2, without the consent and knowledge of the Petitioner, took the child from the house where they were residing. The chi