Delhi High Court
Jivendra Gautam vs Veena Gautam on 22 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 08, 2010
Date of Order: March 22, 2010
+ Cont. Cas (C) 477/2008
% 22.03.2010
Jivendra Gautam ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Shankar, Advocate
Versus
Veena Gautam ...Respondent
Through: Mr. M.P. Acharya, 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
1. By this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed for taking action
against the respondent who is his wife for non compliance of the order dated
30th May, 2008 passed by this Court.
2. Vide order dated 30th May, 2008, this Court had disposed of an appeal
giving following directions:
"Accordingly, applicant/ respondent no.1 (the father of the
child and respondent no.1's father), shall be permitted to
meet the child at Bhopal where the child is currently
staying and studying. The meeting shall take place in the
Income Tax Guest House. These two persons shall be
permitted to meet the child on every Sunday from 10 am
to 6 pm during the summer vacations. The appellant/ wife
and her father shall also be at liberty to be there at the
Cont. Cas(C) 477/2008 Jivendra Gautam v. Veena Gautam Page 1 Of 3
time when the meeting takes place."
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that in accordance with the above
order of this Court, he had been continuously going to meet the child at
Bhopal so as to interact with the child and to see that the child is not deprived
of father's love but the respondent/ wife made it impossible to meet the child.
She has not been brining the child to the Income Tax Guest House on one or
the other pretext and even if the child was brought there, he was brought
there for a very short span of time and the attitude of the child was such as if
he had been told not to talk to the father.
4. This Court had appointed Ms. Eli Mirza as Local Commissioner to visit
Bhopal along with petitioner so as to ensure a smooth meeting between
father and the child and also to observe the attitude of the parties. The report
of the Local Commissioner is there on record and is quite discouraging. The
report shows that the child showed no interest in the father and made
excuses so as to evade the company of his father. The Local Commissioner
was at Bhopal for two days of visitation rights and she observed that all
efforts of father and grandfather failed to convince the child to talk to them
and communicate with them.
5. A perusal of order dated 30th May, 2008 whereby the visitation rights
were allowed would show that the child had expressed his feelings in the
Court itself and told that he did not wish to see his father and his relatives nor
wanted to visit them. However, this Court felt that since the child was of 12
years of age, he should not be deprived of the love of the father.
Cont. Cas(C) 477/2008 Jivendra Gautam v. Veena Gautam Page 2 Of 3
6. Looking at the fact that the respondent did bring the child to Income
Tax Guest House for some period on some visitation dates and the fact that
the child who is born on 30th March, 1996 is now around 14 years of age, I
consider that it would not be appropriate to penalize the mother under
Contempt of Courts Act on the ground that she did not comply with the order
of this Court. I find no force in this contempt petition. The petition is hereby
dismissed with no orders as to costs.
March 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
Cont. Cas(C) 477/2008 Jivendra Gautam v. Veena Gautam Page 3 Of 3
