IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 402 of 2009(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MA.712/2007 Dated 28/03/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------ MOHAMMED ASHRAF,AGED 38 YEARS, CHETTIAM PARAMBIL, S/O. RAYIN KUTTY, CHERIYAMUNDAM.P.O.,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING, C/O.C.P.MUHAMMED IQBAL P.B.NO.2380,ABUDHABI. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------- FEBIN,P.B.NO.61304, APTECH, GULF LIMITED, JEBLALI FREEZON,DUBAI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY KUNJHI KOYAMUTTY, THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, TIRURANGADI.P.O. (D/O.KUNJAYANKUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS). ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 SRI.MANOJ B.MENON FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, ALONG WITH RP NO. 1070 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... Cont. Case (C) No.402 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Contempt application is filed for alleged violation of order of this court wherein petitioner was given visiting rights to have short time custody of his daughter living with petitioner's divorced wife at Dubai. The Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6194 and 6195 of 2010 filed by the respondent held that the High Court has no means to have the orders issued by it enforced in a foreign country. In view of the above finding of the Honourable Supreme Court, proceedings for contempt probably cannot be initiated against the respondent. Further, when the respondent along with her parents and daughter personally appeared, we talked to each and every one and also with petitioner in our Chambers. Even though there are allegations and counter allegations, we do not go into the correctness of the same. However, the petitioner's daughter who is 11 years of age now specifically stated before us that she is scared of petitioner and she 2 does not want to go and live in his company even for short time. We, therefore, cannot certainly compel the child to go to her father whom she does not want even to visit. Probably in the course of time and on maturity, the petitioner's child will of her own decide to meet him. We, therefore, do not find any ground to initiate contempt against the respondent. Accordingly Contempt petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms