Barkha Nanda vs Raj Nath Nanda
2010 Latest Caselaw 1468 Del

                  * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Date of Reserve: 11th March, 2010
                                                         Date of Order: 16th March, 2010

CONT. CAS. (C) No. 692/2009
%                                                                           16.03.2010

        Barkha Nanda                                       ... Petitioner
                                Through: Mr. Aniruddha Choudhary, Advocate

                Versus


        Raj Nath Nanda                                      ... Respondent
                                Through: Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

By this Contempt Petition the petitioner has alleged willful

disobedience, on the part of the respondent, of am order dated 10th February,

2009, passed by the learned ADJ on the basis of a compromise arrived at

between the parties. The petitioner's contention was that in terms of compromise

respondent was to move a petition for quashing of FIR so that the petitioner could

get amount of Rs.8 lac released in her favour. The respondent did not move a

petition for quashing of FIR. Similar allegations were made that the respondent

did not provide visitation rights of the child to the petitioner in terms of the

undertaking and the child was not brought to Delhi during summer vacation for

meeting with the petitioner and it was wrongly informed to the petitioner that the

child had fallen sick. Respondent had his own version of things. During

pendency of this petition, the Court gave directions to the respondent to move a

petition for quashing of FIR. This petition was moved, FIR was quashed and the

payment of Rs.8 lac in terms of compromise was made to the petitioner in the

Court itself. This Court had also given directions for meeting of the child with the

mother (petitioner) and directed that visitation rights be enforced in terms of the

compromise. The respondent appeared in person and stated that the child was

brought to Delhi and he was taken to the petitioner/mother and there was no

disobedience on his part.

2. Looking into the facts, it is evident that the basis of contempt was

that the respondent had not complied with the payment of lump sum amount and

during pendency of this proceeding this was complied with. I consider that this

contempt petition is not maintainable any more.

3. The respondent is directed to sincerely comply with the visitation

rights of the child. In case, it is found that the respondent is not complying with

the visitation rights, the trial Court should enforce these visitation rights through

coercion with the help of local police. I hope the respondent would avert this

situation for the welfare of the child and in case this situation arises, the

respondent solely would be considered responsible for this. In case, there is any

genuine cause for which the child cannot be brought to Delhi, the respondent

shall inform the petitioner in advance.

With this, the petition stands disposed of.

March 16, 2010                               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn