THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.805 OF 2009 7TH OCTOBER, 2009 BETWEEN: BHUPENDER SINGH .. PETITIONER AND VIJAY RANI AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.805 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Contempt Case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 31.8.2004 passed in C.R.P.No.2838 of 2004. Notice before admission has been ordered on 6.7.2009. The petitioner has been permitted to take out personal notice to R2 and R3 through the counsel appeared on their behalf in the trial court. Proof of service has been filed by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court before disposing of the revision directed continuance of the interim arrangement made with regard to the custody of the minor child pending disposal of I.A.No.718 of 2004. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the interim arrangement has not been given effect by 2nd and 3rd respondents and thus R2 and R3 are liable to be punished in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. The concluding paragraph of the order passed in the revision reads as under: “ 14. Since the learned Judge has not decided the application on merits I am left with no option except to remand the matter back to the trial court for passing orders on merits in the said I.A., so far as the interim arrangement made with regard to the custody of a minor child during vacation shall continue pending disposal of I.A.No.718 of 2004. The trial court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.718 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” It appears I.A.No.718 of 2004 has been closed and thereupon the petitioner filed I.A.No.422 of 2006 under section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the respondents herein to permit him and his parents to visit the minor child at Tandur once in every 7 days preferably on Sunday, in order to spend time with the child. The learned II Additional District Judge, R.R.District allowed the I.A. partly by an order dated 27.4.2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ In the terms of compromise, settled between the parties, petitioner herein did not reserve the visiting rights. While disposing off the C.R.P. the Hon’ble High court of A.P., made clear observation “so far as the interim arrangement made with regard to the custody of minor child during vacation shall continue”. Though the I.A.No.718 of 2004 is closed. The O.P. is still pending. I feel, the orders passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, R.R. District in I.A.No.718 of 2004 and confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the revision have to be followed by this Court by ordering custody of the minor to the petitioner for a period of seven days during the vacation which is clearly mentioned in terms of compromise effects between the parties before the Lok Adalat in O.P.No.31 of 2000. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. Whether the petitioner can be appointed as Guardian or not cannot be decided in this O.P. petition. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to deliver custody of minor to the petitioner for a period of seven days during the vacation as per terms of compromise effected between the parties. This petition is closed accordingly.” The order passed in I.A.No.422 of 2006 indicates the closure of I.A.No.718 of 2004. Whatever direction given by this Court in the revision becomes extinct with the closure of I.A.No.718 of 2004. The new arrangement came to be made by the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District in I.A.No.422 of 2006 with regard to the custody of the minor child. If at all any order is to be executed it is the order of the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District passed in I.A.No.422 of 2006. This Contempt Case filed by the petitioner complaining disobedience of the order dated 31.8.2004 passed in C.R.P.No.2838 of 2004 is wholly misconceived. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. 7th October, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.805 OF 2009 7TH OCTOBER, 2009