IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 531 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. No. 1055 of 2009 IN MA.892/2008 Dated 07/04/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------- RAJU HARIHARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.C.N.HARIHARAN, RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA, (VADAKKEKARA) HOUSE, VALLICHIRA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ RAJASREE C.P.ALIAS MAYA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.C.N.PADMANABHAN, NOW RESIDING AT CHEBUKATHADATHIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Con.Case(C).No. 531 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 7.4.2009 IN I.A. NO.1055 OF 2009 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.892 OF 2009. ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 16.04.2001 AND TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 21.05.2011 AND TRANSLATION. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 531 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner who is the father of the minor child aged 4½ years and was given the visitorial rights as per Annexure 1 order has approached this Court stating that the specific directions given by this Court permitting him to visit the child on every third Saturday of each month between 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. has been flouted by the respondent on 16.04.2011 and 21.05.2011, which involves the offence of Contempt of court. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent pointing out the subsequent turn of events as well, which has not been adverted to by the petitioner while filing the contempt matter. It is stated that, after passing Annexure 1 order, the petitioner had filed I.A. No.752/2010 in April 2010 seeking for interim custody of the child during the summer holidays. After considering the matter, this Court Contempt Case (Civil) No. 531 of 2011 -:2:- passed Annexure R1(a) order on 07.04.2010 wherein reference has been made to the earlier order passed on 07.04.2009 and the subsequent order dated 22.07.2009. It is stated that, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing I.A. No.697/2011 this year as well, and by virtue of the interim order passed on 11.04.2011 as borne by Annexure R1(b), custody of the child was given to a larger extent, taking note of the fact that it was during the course of vacation. It is asserted by the respondent/contemnor that, in compliance with Annexure R1(b) order, the child was handed over to the petitioner through the Shirasthadar, Family Court, Kottayam on 18.04.2011. 3. The grievance projected by the petitioner with reference to the earlier order is sought to be answered by the respondent stating that, in view of the subsequent orders, the earlier orders had lost the significance in respect of the dates 16.04.2011 and 21.05.2011, since custody of the child was given for much larger period. It is also stated that the earlier orders having been referred to in the subsequent order, the petitioner is Contempt Case (Civil) No. 531 of 2011 -:3:- not justified in placing reliance on the earlier order for compelling the respondent to give custody of the child on every third Saturday. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is absolutely no contumacious act on the part of the respondent and that the orders passed by this Court have been given effect to with utmost respect. The learned counsel also submits that after vacation, the custody of the child was given on the third Saturday of this month as well as ordered earlier and this being the position, nothing further remains to be considered by this Court. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no culpable act on the part of the respondent in giving effect to the orders passed by this Court and that the custody of the child is being given to the petitioner on every third Saturday as already ordered. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this arrangement will be continued as already ordered and the custody of the child will be handed over to the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 531 of 2011 -:4:- petitioner until the same is varied by this Court after hearing both the sides. The submission is recorded and the Contempt Case is closed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb