C.R. No. 767 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 767 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.2.2010 ... Jasbir Kaur ................Petitioner vs. Dalwinder Kaur and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.10.2009 passed by Ms. Gurmeet Kaur, Guardian Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioner has been directed to produce the child in the Court. An application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, was filed by the respondents, which was ultimately decided on the basis of compromise on 30.8.2008 and it was ordered that Dalwinder Kaur and Balwinder Singh shall not claim their right to custody of minor but they were granted liberty to visit on 4th Sunday of every month from 2.00 P.M. To 4.00 P.M., in the house of Manmohan Singh. Thereafter, the respondents moved an application C.R. No. 767 of 2010 -2- for initiating contempt proceedings for violation of the order dated 30.8.2008. During the pendency of that application, the Guardian Judge, vide impugned order dated 24.10.2009 fixed the case for 14.11.2009 for filing of rejoinder and the respondent, now petitioner, was directed to produce the child in the Court on the said date. The said order has been challenged in the present petition. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is no violation of the order dated 30.8.2008 and has further submitted that petitioner cannot be ordered to produce the child in the Court. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for initiating contempt proceedings, by the Guardian Judge. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. The above said arguments can only be advanced before the Guardian Judge at the time of decision of that application. No prejudicial order has been passed against the petitioner and she has been simply ordered to produce the child in the Court. So, I see no illegality in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( K.C. Puri ) 4.2.2010 Judge chugh