1 16-WP-6290-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.6290 OF 2026 SHWETAL D/O RAJENDRA MALODE VS ABHIJEET S/O CHHABILDAS NEHATE - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Akshay Sudame, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 20th August, 2026 Heard Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition challenges the interim order dated 28/07/2026 passed by the District Judge-2 Amravati in petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 3. By way of said order, the trial Court has partly allowed the application filed by the father i.e. the respondent herein and granted visitation rights on various conditions. It would be worth to mention that in the impugned order there is an elaborate discussion and balance has been maintained. It can also be seen that visitation right is granted to the minor child on the first Saturday of every month between 11 am and 1 pm. It is further seen that for the first three consecutive visits, the visitation is to take place within the premises of the Family Court, Amravati and thereafter the Family Court has permitted to take the child outside the Court premises for only two hours on certain conditions. 2 16-WP-6290-26.odt 4. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment in case of Mausami Dilipkumar Bhatt vs. Maunang Lalitkumar Gor, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 894 to support his submission. He particularly relies on paragraph 25 of the said judgment and submits that an identical situation arose before the Gujarat High Court wherein it is observed that no application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Ward Act would be maintainable. 5. I am hardly impressed by the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as admittedly the order impugned in the petition is an interim order where maintainability of the petition or otherwise could not be dealt with, at least by me in this petition while exercising supervisory jurisdiction. 6. The writ petition is liable to be rejected. It is thus rejected. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE,J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 09:59:18