1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 419 OF 2009 IN PETITION NO. F-1325 OF 2008 Manish L. Bhatia .. Petitioner V/s. Priya Laxman .. Respondent/ Applicant Mr. Tushad Cooper a/w. Mr. Subhash Jadhav with Mr. Raghavendra Singh i/b. ALMT Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Solicooper i/b. Mr. Nityoah Suneel & Associates for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. [VACATION JUDGE] DATED : DECEMBER 24, 2009. P.C. : The above Contempt Petition is filed by the Petitioner father alleging that the Respondent mother has inter-alia committed contempt of clauses 3 and 4 of the Consent Terms dated 14th April, 2009 filed before the 4th Family Court, Mumbai in MJ Petition No. F-1325 of 2008, by not sending the child to 2 Abu Dhabi even once during the year 2009. 2. Clause 3 and 4 of the said Consent Terms dated 14th April, 2009 reads as under : “3. The Petitioner No.2 shall have access to Rahul on all vacations except for one long vacation (either Diwali or Christmas), which will be decided by the Petitioner’s mutually. 4. It is further agreed that the Petitioner No.2 shall be entitled to take Rahul to UAE at least twice a year. However on these trips the Petitioner No.1 shall accompany Rahul till he is 10 years old. The Petitioner No. 2 agrees and undertakes to provide on every such trip, 2-business class (to and fro) Air tickets to UAE and back for Petitioner No. 1 and Rahul’s for the aforementioned access arrangement. The Petitioner No. 2 further agrees and undertakes to provide a visa to Petitioner No. 1 for her travel to UAE and will also bear the accommodation expenses each time of her stay in Dubai.” 3. In the said Contempt Petition, an order dated 4th December, 2009 was passed wherein the statement of the Applicant wife was recorded that she will be taking the minor Rahul to UAE during the ensuing Christmas Vacation. 4. The present Civil Application is taken out by the 3 Respondent mother stating that she has suffered a fracture and that she is unable to accompany the child to UAE, and therefore, she be relieved from the above statement made by her through her Advocate before this Court on 4th December, 2009. 5. The Petitioner father has come to India and is at present availing access of the minor in India. The main grievance of the Petitioner father is that the Respondent wife is on one pretext or the other always preventing the Petitioner from taking access of the minor child Rahul as agreed in the Consent Terms. This allegation is disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent mother. However, after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties for some time, the following order is passed by consent of the parties who are both present in Court: i. During the current Christmas Vacation, the Petitioner father shall continue to have access of the said minor Rahul at Mumbai including overnight access where the Respondent mother shall also be entitled to accompany the minor. 4 ii. The Respondent mother through his Advocate undertakes to this Court that she will take the minor Rahul to UAE during the entire summer as well as winter (Christmas) vacations in the year 2010, subject to the Petitioner father complying with the consent order by sending the Air tickets. The said undertaking is accepted. iii. The Petitioner father through his Advocate undertakes that he will provide hotel accommodation to the Respondent mother in the vicinity where he would be residing with the minor child Rahul during the summer as well as winter (Christmas) vacations in the year 2010. The said undertaking is accepted. 6. It is clarified that the above order is confined only to the two vacations in the year 2010 and shall not be treated as a precedent and shall not in any manner substitute the Consent Terms dated 18th April, 2009. It is further clarified that the 5 parties shall at no time attempt to interpret the Consent Terms dated 18th April, 2009 on the basis of what is agreed by them in the present order and the said Consent Terms speaks for itself. 7. The Civil Application is, accordingly, disposed of. 8. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirestedar of this Court. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)