-: 1 :- cp-227/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2011 Nachiketa Pramod Tiwari. ..Petitioner. Versus Rachana Pyarelal Tiwari. ..Respondent Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : July 8, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The grievance of the petitioner-husband is that the respondent has not given access of the child - Aryamaan to him in terms of the order dated 4th May 2011 passed by the Family Court Judge No. 5, Mumbai. Under the said order, the respondent-wife is directed to give access of the said child to the petitioner in the children complex of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on all working First, Third and Fifth Saturday’s of every month between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. commencing from 7th May 2011 until further orders. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was given access srp -: 2 :- cp-227/11 of child Aryamaan on 7th May 2011. Access of the child could not be given to the petitioner on 21st May 2011 due to on-going examination of the child. However, compensatory access was given on 20/6/2011. The petitioner was not given access of the said child on 4/6/2011. The petitioner was given access of the said child on 18/6/2011 and thereafter access is being given regularly in terms of the aforesaid order of the Family Court. 3. So far as access on 4/6/2011 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is ready and willing to give compensatory access for that day on any other day with one week’s prior notice to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will avail this compensatory access by giving one week’s prior notice to the respondent. Statements are accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent makes a statement that henceforth access of child Aryamaan will be given to the petitioner in accordance with the order dated 4th May 2011 passed by the Family Court in Interim Application No. 45 of 2010 in Petition No. D-67 of 2010. Statement is accepted. 5. In view of the above, nothing survives in the contempt -: 3 :- cp-227/11 petition inasmuch as the petitioner's grievance is redressed. Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. (Ranjit More, J.)