Joseph Mendonca vs. Condred Menezes
AI Summary
A father's fight to retain custody of his minor daughter Elizabeth in the High Court of Bombay. The court granted interim custody to Joseph Mendonca while the matter awaits final hearing, balancing the child's welfare with parental rights in a family law dispute.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Joseph Mendonca and Condred Menezes are parties to a family dispute concerning custody of a minor child named Elizabeth. At the time of the High Court application, Elizabeth was residing with Joseph Mendonca along with two other siblings (initially stated as three, later corrected to two). Joseph Mendonca sought to continue this custody arrangement through an interim application in the High Court while the underlying Family Court Appeal was pending.
Timeline of Events
Civil Application No. 141 of 2016 filed in High Court of Bombay seeking interim custody
Vacation Bench (Justices B. P. Colabawalla and B. R. Gavai) heard the application and granted interim custody to Joseph Mendonca; matter stood over to 9th June 2016
Correction order issued by Justices Naresh H. Patil and Prakash D. Naik correcting the appearance record and factual details (changing 'three' siblings to 'two' siblings)
Key Factual Findings
The minor child Elizabeth is presently staying with the Applicant (Joseph Mendonca)
Source: Current Court Finding
The minor child is residing with the Applicant along with two other siblings
Source: Current Court Finding
The current arrangement of the child with the Applicant serves the interests of justice
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
Joseph Mendonca argued that the minor child Elizabeth is currently residing with him along with other siblings, and that this arrangement should continue as it is in the interest of justice and the child's welfare. The petitioner sought interim custody continuation pending the final hearing by the Regular Bench.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent's specific arguments are not detailed in the orders provided. Condred Menezes appeared in person but no substantive arguments are recorded in the judgment text.
Court's Reasoning
The Vacation Bench (Justices B. P. Colabawalla and B. R. Gavai) reasoned that: (1) The minor child is presently staying with the Applicant along with other siblings; (2) Till the Regular Bench considers the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to continue the said arrangement; (3) Therefore, interim custody should continue with the Applicant. The court prioritized the stability of the child's current living situation and the principle of maintaining status quo pending final adjudication.
- Emphasis on child welfare and best interests of the child
- Preference for maintaining status quo in interim orders
- Pragmatic approach to family disputes by prioritizing stability
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Custody of minor child Elizabeth shall continue with the Applicant (Joseph Mendonca)
- 2.Matter stood over to 9th June 2016 for consideration by Regular Bench
- 3.Correction order dated 17th June 2016 corrected the appearance record and factual details in the order dated 30th May 2016
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
While this is a High Court order, it is primarily an interim/procedural order on a specific fact situation rather than a landmark judgment establishing new legal principles. However, it illustrates the application of established principles regarding interim custody and child welfare. The order would be persuasive authority for similar interim custody matters in other High Courts.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Listed On:
30 May 2016
Order Text
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 141 OF 2016 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST) NO. 13087 OF 2016
| Office<br>Notes,<br>Office<br>Memoranda of appearances,<br>Court's orders or directions &<br>Registrar's orders. | Court's or Judge's orders |
|---|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/by Raj Legal for applicant/Org. Respondent. Condred Menezes, Respondent/ Org. Appellant, present in person.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ**.**
June 17, 2016.
P.C. :
Not on board, mentioned for speaking to minutes and, therefore, taken on board.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for speaking to minutes of the order dated 30/5/2016.
The appearance i.e. "Mr. Joseph Mendonca, the Applicant/Org. Respondent in-person present. Mr. S. P. Kadam a/w Mr. R. S. Shekhawat, Mr. J.B. Choudhary i/b Raj Legal for the Respondent/Org. Appellant", be replaced and read as " Mr. S. P. Kadam a/w Mr. R. S. Shekhawat, Mr. J. B. Choudhary i/b Raj Legal, for the Applicant/Org. Respondent. Mr. Condred Menezes, the respondent/Org. Appellant in-person present".
In paragraph no.2, line no.2, the word "three" be replaced and read as "two".
Order dated 30/5/2016 stands corrected accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK*,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order