Wmww ‘ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. .63 § /2008 (DB): N k PETITIONERS : 1. Praveen Kumar Pathak, aged about 37 years, S/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak, Prafulla Kumar Pathak, aged about 32 years, S/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan Pathak. Both resident of Polsaipara, Near Laxrninarayan Mandir, P. O. 8a Distt. Durg (C. G.) Smt. Prativa Dixit, aged about 39 years, W/o. Shri Akhuesh Dixit, R/o. Q. No. 14—B, Street—36, Sector—4, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C. G.) V E R S U S co @EMNORS : 1. O Pramod Kumar Pathak, ¢«WW aged about 43 years, S/o. late Shri Prakash Narayan P Pathak. 2. Smt. Archana Pathak, aged ‘ about 39 years, W/o. Shri P. Pramod Pathak. Both R/o. MIG— 125, Padmanabhpur, Durg, P. O. 85 Distt. Durg (C. G.) V) PETITION UNDENR’SECTION 2 lb! AND SECTION 12 OF CONTEMP’WOF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ABTICLEW215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA «u wmwm \ u SB : Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan Sr rivastava, J. 14-02-2011 None fur the petitionem, even in he second round, Shri Prateek Sharma, counse! fO' respondenis. Heard. No representation is made by the petitioners. A statement was made before this Court on 06-09-2007 that if the petitioners along with their famiiy me mbers come to meet the mother—Smt. Rukmani Pathak (in the writ petition), she will happily meet them and respondent No.4—Pramod Kumar Pathak therein ant! his wife also stated that it the petitioners and their family members come to mee‘ Smt. Rukmani Pathak, they will have no objection This Court has expressed hclpe that the above arrangement will bring fruitful resulte in differences between the parties in due course of time and with the aforesaid observation, the writ petition was finally disposed off, Ailegation in the present petition is that when the petitioners went to meet their mothen the respondent did not allow them, There is no averment in the petition that the mother, who had a ready stated in the Court that she is comfortable with the respondent, was p'evented The allegations in the contempt petition are quite vague. ln the reply, it has aiso been stated that the respondents have no objection, if the petitioners rreet Smt. Rukmani Pathak, According to them, as and when Smt Rukmani Pathak wants to meet the petitioners, they wilt have no objection. Considering the totality of the pleadings made, l am inciined to discharge the notice Accordingly, rule is discharged. Consequently, the petition is nna ly disposed oft Sd/— ShrivaStava Manindra Mohan Judge TLlmal‘le l hint Win