IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 271 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MA.335/2010 Dated 19/08/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.S.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAHMANIAN, CHIRANGARETH HOUSE, ANNANAD DESOM, ANNANAD P.O.,CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- BINDIYA V.S., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, AND W/O.KRISHNAKUMR,"CHAITHANYAM" TOWN LIMIT ROAD, ALUVA & EMPLOYED AT NETWORK APPLIANCE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.,3RD FLOOR,FAIR WINDS BLOCK, EGL SOFTWARE PARK,OFF INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560071. ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- Cont.Case (C).No. 271 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondent has disobeyed the directions of this Court in Annexures A & B orders passed in Mat.Appeal.No. 335 of 2010. In Annexure-A order the agreement between the parties was incorporated at paragraphs vii and viii, which read thus: “vii) Until the child continues in the custody of the appellant as stipulated above, on the first, third and fifth (if any) Saturdays of all English Calender months, the appellant shall hand over the child to the respondent at 9 a.m and the respondent shall return the child to the appellant at 6 p.m on those days; viii) The venue where the child can be so handed over and returned shall be reported to the Court in the joint tatement to be filed incorporating all the terms on the next date of posting. The child shall on no such occasion be taken outside the city of Bangalore by the respondent.” 2. Thereafter, when the matter came up for further consideration on 13th September, 2010, as agreed between the parties, it was directed as per Annexure B as follows: Cont.Case.271/11 2 “2. Call this petition again on 27.9.2010. In the meantime, all further necessary steps shall be taken. There shall in the meantime be an interim direction that the child shall be handed over on the first, third and fifth (if any) Saturdays of all English Calender months at 9.00 a.m by the appellant to the respondent and respondent shall return the child at 5.00 p.m on those days. Handing over/taking over shall take place at the residence of Ms.Sheela, House No.755, 9th Cross, 10th Main, Indira Nagar, 2nd Stage, Bangalore-38. Acknowledgment for such taking over/handing over custody shall be given by the respective party to the other.” 3. Subsequently, the appeal itself was disposed of as per Annexure-C order. The complaint now raised by the petitioner is that the respondent has not complied with the above said directions by handing over the child to the petitioner on the agreed dates at the agreed venue. In view of the rival contentions and allegations made in order to resolve the controversy amicably, we had suggested the parties to agree on a mutually acceptable venue. However, the parties could not arrive at any such agreement. On account of such disagreement, this Court passed an order dated 13th June, 2011, the relevant portion of Cont.Case.271/11 3 which reads as follows: “Therefore, as an interim measure, we direct that the respondent shall hand over the child to the petitioner on the dates specified in Annexure-B order at the Family Court, Ernakulam. The child shall be brought to the Family Court on the specified dates at 11 a.m and it will be open to the petitioner to take over the child and return the child as ordered in the said orders at 5 p.m on the dates specified.” 4. It is in pursuance of the said order that the case is posted today. Even today, the parties are at disagreement regarding the venue as suggested by us and hence we heard the learned counsel on both sides and considered the issue on merits. 5. Admittedly, under Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, decrees and orders passed by the Family Court are executable in the same manner as it is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This applies to Annexures A and B also. Therefore, if the case of the petitioner is that the order is to be executed, it is up to them to get the order executed in terms of Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the remedy by way of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is only if the petitioner succeeds in proving that the action of the respondent substantially interfered with the due course of justice. In this case Cont.Case.271/11 4 pleadings do not make out such a case. In this context, they followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang [2006(2) KLT 740 (SC)], where it was held thus: “12. All decrees and orders are executable under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consent decrees or orders are of course also executable. But merely because an order or decree is executable, would not take away the Courts jurisdiction to deal with a matter under the Act provided the Court is satisfied that the violation of the order or decree is such, that if proved, it would warrant punishment under S.13 of the Act on the ground that the contempt substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. The decisions relied upon by the respondents themselves hold so as we shall subsequently see.” Therefore, we dismiss the Contempt of Court Case, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies in accordance with law. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs