Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

W/O vs Nileshkumar on 19 September, 2008

Author: C.K.Buch

Bench: C.K.Buch

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/1215920/2007	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 12159 of 2007
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 2259 of 2007
 

 
 
==================================================
 

HEMABEN
D/O. NAVINCHANDRA SHAHAND 

 

W/O.
NILESHBHAI S. SHAH - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

NILESHKUMAR
SHANTILAL SHAH - Respondent
 

==================================================Appearance
: 
MS ROOPAL R PATEL for the
Petitioner. 
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA for the
Respondent. 
==================================================
 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 19/09/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH) Considering the nature of the relief prayed for in the present application, it will be difficult for the Court to pass any legal and executable order, more particularly in the background of the prayer made in the appeal pending before the Court and, therefore, this application requires to be rejected. It is unfortunate that the nature of litigation is totally of a different kind and passing of the order of the nature which has been prayed by the application, for the sake of argument, when passed, would be perhaps without jurisdiction. If minor Heni has love and affection for the respondent father and the father has also similar affection for minor Heni, then it is a matter of mutual love and affection between these two. It will be difficult for the Court to direct the respondent husband i.e. father of minor Heni to behave in a particular manner that has been suggested by the applicant appellant. If Heni has any individual privilege or right whatsoever, then the course of litigation would be different and the applicant at least cannot get the relief of the type that has been prayed for in the present application.

For the foregoing reasons, the application is rejected.

[C. K. BUCH, J.] [H. B. ANTANI, J.] /shamnath     Top