The High Court · 2025

Order

'this Contempt ( ase is fited by the petitioner under Secr io'r 10 to 12 of theConternptof(l'rult:;;\ctreadwithArticte2l5oftheConstit'rti'lnoilndiato punishtherespondenl'Contemnorfot.grossandwitlfutr,iolationoftheorders of this Court dated ()1.03.2C22 passed in C'R'P'No 291 ol' 1022 against the order dated 07.0 1 . 10;l :l passed in I'A'No'3645 of 202 1 in I A N'r'9'8 l of 2020 in G.W.O.P.No.27 o1- 20i10.

2.Thepetitioneranclrespondeutarehusbandandw,ilirespecively.outol. their wedlock, llxry I erc blessed r';ith a male chiid by nanrt R eyan:rh Singh bcrrnonl8.l0.]016I)ttetothecliffererrceslretweenthcl]()titionerandthe respondent they u er'.' r'esiding separately and the minor boy rv:rs in the custody oftherespondenti.t:.hismother'Thepetitioner"vasresiclin:inNetherlands due to his emplovrnent and the responclent was a resiiltnt of Narsingi' Rangareddy Districl, 1-elangana' The petitioncr filed an application under GuardianandWard:l-\ct,1890videG.W.o.P'No.27of2'020torcustodyofthe rninor.and he u.irs a Lrrved visitation rights rn the said O.P. as pe r the orders in l.A.No.98 I of 1020 cared 30.1i.2020. Lhe Farr,ity Cot,11 .[;aLrti'd visitation of the minor boy t.c the petitioner throur;h viCeo conf-erencinp 'tt every Sunday' 2 I- x..'..e5 ' l ] DT.CRR,J '\ cc 2150 2021 between I i:00 AM to 12:00 Noon for a duration of one hour starting from the month of December, 2020 and also appointed an Advocate Commissioner / Coordinator to monitor the process of visitation through video conferencing by fixing the fee of the Commissioner @ Rs.2,500/- for each visitation to be paid by the petitioner. The respondent filed C.R.P.No. 187 of 2021 to dismiss the order passed in I.A.No.981 of 2020. This Court dismissed the CRP and upheld the orders passed in I.A.No.98 I ol 2020. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3645 of 2021 in I.A.No.9Sl of 2020 in G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 seeking physical visitation rights of the child whenever he was in India and the Family Court at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District allowed the petition in part granting visitation rights to the petitioner of his minor son Reyansh Singh on every Monday and Wednesday between 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM at the Family Court premises, Rangareddy District whenever the f-ather of the boy was in India. The said order was passed on 07.01.2022. Against the said order, the respondent preferred C.R.P.No.29l of 2022. This Court modified the order in 1.A.No.3645 of 2021 dated 07.01'.2022 granting physical visitation rights of Master Reyansh to the petitioner on every working Saturday between 0l:00 PM to 05:00 PM whenever the respondent father comes to India. It was further specified that whenever he is in Netherlands, the respondent - father could have visitation rights of the child through video conferencing (ontine) as ordered by the Court below in I.A.No.9Sl of 2020 dated 30. 11.2020. For violation of the above 3 DT.GRR' J ,:c 2350 2023 orders Passed (l.Rl'}.No.291of2022dated04'03'2022'thtpetrtroner preferred this ContetnPt'

3. Heard Sri [] Sut:ash, leamed counsel for the petitiotlcr ard \4s B'Sapna Reddy, learned coutlsel ror the respondent - contemnor'

4. Learned courls€ [ tbr the petitioner submitted that the t:spondent was disregarding the direc:ions given by this Court in C'R'P'No lc'I f 2022 and disptaying a flagrant disregard to the orders passed by this Court' Initially' there was coopelzltion fiom the respondent between the period spanning from 04.0g.2022 to I9.02.2023. During . the above period, therc ri'as efl'ective communication and Positive interaction between the fathcr ar d the child' L{owever, starline l'rtt t't 26 '02'2023 " tbe respondent was nor- -c'|)mplying the directions of this r._lotrt. The respondent was instructing the t:hild to verbally abuse his f'ather rrnd 'r:soded to concealing the chitd and delib:re tely retiained from allou'ing the child to be seen by the petitioner - fathe' during online interactions' The re soondent had committed numerous viola.ions against the .r Cl'R'P'Nos'29 i of 2022 and I 87 of 202 t t he respondent orders of this Cl:urt i demonstrated a ref 3lted patteffI of non-cotnpliance and disr''bedience and submitted a list of t'rolations committed by the respondent : tier dismissal of C.R.P.No.291 of 20'l l and enclosed the reports of the Advocrte Commissioner irr suPPort of his r:or't':ntions' .- X*.'=.1\l'! 4 Dr,GRR, J cc 2350 2023 4'l . Learned counser for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent filed five cRPs tilr date in the High courr to avoid visitations and to avoid getting punished for violation of access orders and constructed a wa[ between the father and son and making the petitioner to run. between Famiry court and High court to exercise his basic and natural right of seeing his own son.either physically or virtually by violating the orders in I.A.No.3645 of 2021. He further submitted that when the respondent failed to compry the order of the Family court for production of the chird, the court imposed costs of Rs. 15,000/- against the respondent on 16.02.2022. The respondent filed c.R.P.No.829 of 2022 against the said order. This court in c.R.p.No.g29 of 2022 granted interim stay of the said order sub-iect to the petitioner (respondent herein) depositing one-fourth of the costs imposed by the trial court.

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submittecl that the respondent - contemnor gave an undertaking on oath earrier arso on 07.04.2021 in Family court giving an un-conditional apology for violating the orders in I.A.No.9g1 of 2020 in G.w.o.P.No.27 of 2020 for dropping rhe conrempr proceedings against her, but continued to exhibit such conduct ard was committing fresh violations recklessly, despite an undertaking on oath that she would not violate the court orders and prayed to punish the respondent contemnor for gross and willful violation of the orders of this court dated 04.03.2022 in c.R.p.No.29l of 2022 and relied upon the judgments oiih! t-ton,ute Apex court in prithavi Nath 5 l) r.(i RR, J ,:c 2350 2023 Ram v. State of 'lharl'Jrand and Othersr' Amit Kumar Das' Joint Secretary' Baitanik, a Registere ..J Society v' Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagorc C haritable Trust2 in Special 1-ciLre Pctition (Civil) No'34892 of 2014 clatec 3D 01'2024 and Komal Krishan llrora and Others v' Sandeep' Kumar alias Sandeep Chugh and Otherss' llc further relied upon the judgment of the I Lor'ble Apex Court tn Kokkand:r B'Poondacha and others v K.D.GanaJrathi and of the High Court of Telangani L irr Harsha another and lhc Tipirneni v. Smt' Prtoja Tipimenis and of the High Court of Dcl ri rn Douglas j.ulgment 4 Breckenridge r'. Jhilrnil Breckenridge6'

5. L.camcd coun:'el lbr the respondent on the other hand subr:rit'ed'that the petitioner had nol c )tne up with clean hands and filed the appl ica 'ion u'ith a malicious intention lIe rvas continuously threatening the resporr 1er"t' her child and family. Due to v'hich' CC'No'2605 of 2022 was registered 'rnt er Sections 354-D.504. 506 ti'r-- and CCNo'2609 of 2023 under Sections l2l' 506' 504 Ipc and the sur'e *.ere pending on the fire of Raiendranagar (rourt. The petitioner fited i .a.l'1o 981 of 2020 in G'W'O'P'No'27 ol 202( lbr online visitation of thr: ,:hirrr ciuring corona pandemic. Thereafter- thc pe'.irioner frled I.A.No.3645 of 20'l in I'A'No'981 of 2020 in G'W'O'PNo27 t'1'2020 with ' Civil Appeal Nc 10l l 'f 1000 dated 24'08'20 04 '? 2024 INSC 73 , ip""r"i'r.*"" .A ppea rCriminal) No.9497 of 2021 dtted 29 '03 '2023 'AtR 201 I SC l -i: l 'Con,"rnp,Cut. \o-lli o12020 dated 04 17'2020 "CI"i..i C"tc Nir.ll :i ol20l I dated 21 02'2012 6 Dr.GRR, J cc 2350 2023 false and fabricated submissions falsely claiming that the Delhi I{igh court has given visitation rights to the petitioner by concealing thc final ordcr. No proper visitation right order was passed by the Delhi High Court and nothing ."g*jing visitation had been mentioned or ordered in its final order while transferring all the cases to Hyderabad. The petitioner had filed a written complaint against the respondent and her minor son to have been involved in sex rackel / flesh trade fbr procurement of money and that the respondent was having multiple sexual intercourse with multiple men in front of her ovvn son and recording the said videos in front of the child. The respondenr filed a complaint against t_he same on which a charge sheet was filed, numbered as CC.No.2505 of 2022, which was pending adjudication and he u,as evading from all criminal cases. 'Ihe respondent preferred C.R.P.No.29l of 2022 against the ordcr passed in I.A.No.3645 of 2021. This Court clubbed I.A.Nos.98l ol 2020 and 3645 of 2021 anrl passed. an order dated 04.03.2022 observing that it was not advisable to grant visitation rights to the father on rvorking days and modilled the order of the Court below granting physical visitation rights on every working Saturday between 01:00 PM to 05:00 PM whenever the respondent - father came to India. I'he petitioner r'vith a pre-planned criminal conspiracy tiled more than 40 / 50 out of orders with advancement petitions to call Lhe child on non-working Saturdays and on week days and was forcing the child to leave school back to back and filed a series of contempi-petitions in C.R.P.No.29l of 2022. 'I-he - { 7 Dr.GRR. J c,: 2350 2023 petitioner concealed r'ht ibcts that the respondent always came to he Family Court even when it t\as ill lormed to her one hour before 01:00 PV or few hours before Saturdays b1 r'alling her counsel stating that he u'as available in Hyderabad. The petiticrier was intentionally using pressure tacti:s' The same wasevidentfrom{itingcfmultiplefrivolousaffidavitsinaclosed/<l,isposedoff I.A, which would anrotrrt Lo perjury and criminal contempt' The pe:itioner was strategically malig,ning the respondent's character and tvas canying out a personal vendetta agairrst her' The present petition was also anoLher attempt in lu(herance on his irlte'rl ion' "

5.1. Learned counsc fbr the respondent further submitted that there was a serious threat to t'he Ii ri: ol the respondent and the minor chitd' f re petitioner ct'itninal offences of statking' allegation: o l- prostitution had committed scriotr against the respolld.'nr rurd her son' There was a protection ordet irr I)VC'No'24 of 2023 against r-lre p':titioner' The respondent already hled a modification petition on 04.i) / l() li against the orders in C'R'P'No'291 of 2022' The petitioner was not i-r-rrtt'shing his correct address in Netherlands rr in Hyderabad and was playing firi.rd upon the Court' The Embassy ol India in the Netherrands had gir..rrr a non-traceable report stating that no such person by name Vivek Kutltar r":ls living in Netherlands' Thereafter' the lretrtioner created a t-arse rocar adcrress rnd was evading giving his current f61<rig, address and details..IhisIourinC.R.P.No.2glof2o22videorderdalt''d04.0].2022 Dr.GRR, J ec 23i0 2023 considering the criminar and abusive conduct of the petitioner upon the d 8 respondent and her son. did not grant any access other than on working Saturdays that too inside the court premises, only in the presence ofrespondent - mother. More than 40 out of orders / advance petitions and urgent memos were filed by the petitioner in G.w.o.p.No.27 of 2020 in I.A.No.36 45 of 2021 and I.A.No.9S1of 2020. The petitioner was firing the apprications with simirar prayers numerous times with false affidavits. Three charge sheets were tjled against the petitioner, the petitioners' parents, brother and sister-in-law. CC.Nos.3092 of 2022, 2605 of 2022, 2609 of 2022, D.V.C.No.24 of 2023, M-c.No' 149 of 2023 and a modification petition in c.R.p.No.2 9 r of 2022 were pending against the petitioner. There was a personal bond and friendship between the Advocate commissioner / coordinator and the petitioner and they were intentionally misleading the judiciary. The respondent had submitted her objections to the coordinator's report and also filed an apprication tbr his removal. There were several instances where the petitioner had committed violence, making derogatory,, unethical comments on respondent and her chird. The same had never been submitted by the coordinator in any of his reporls. The coordinator suppressed and concealed a material facts and not disclosed the same fairly and truly, but stated them in a distorted manner misleading the court. The petitioner was not contesting the divorce o.p.No. 1659 of 20r9 fired by the respondent. He had not filed his counter tilt date. He neither submitted --,.. Dr.GRR, J cc 2350 2023 hisassetsandinconle|itidavitandnotcontestingtheMairrtenarceo.P.No.996 of 2O2l and comrnili(:d Contempt of C'R'P'No'618 of 20211 liied by the respondent hereirr. I It: ,vas also stalking the respondent and mal'in 1 allegations against her as a prostiltLte and that she was involved in sex racket / flesh trade' He was evading I\' lr t tenance. Divorce O P's' and evading lroln contesting G.W.O.P.No.27 ol l()-0- as the respondent had submitted all :v'dence of his abuse, assault, r'iolen,.'t and vulgar allegations made by the pet;tioner upon the chitd. If trial starred. the petitioner was aware that he would oe exposed and would be sent to.iail nrmediately He was also evading criminrrl lrials and was filing frivolous cont( nrpt petitions with false' fabricated and bltrtant lies and relied upon the.iudgrrrent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjali Ka;rroor v' Rai iv BaijalT. She also relr :'d upon the orders of this Court in W'P'N t'3 4732 of 2O23 between the saml: Parties delivered on 25.04 '2024 and tirt rropies of the complaints lodged bt her in various criminal cases and 161 Cr 'P C' statements of the witnesses recc r,]ed in the said criminal cases and the orrler of this Court in C.R.P.No. 183 ot'lijl4 dated04'04'2024' 6 On hearins, tht: rival contentions, the point that arises lbr consideration Whether the respondent - c''rntetnnor had now in this Conteln'rt Case committed willtrr] d s,lbedience and flouted the orders of th]s C,lurt and if so, IS: whether she is Iiahle f rr C)ontempt? 'Civil Appcal No.26l8 ,r1 2009 dated t7.04.2009 1 Dr.GRR, J cc 2J50 202J This court in c.R.p.No.29r of 2022 d,ated 04.03.2022 modified,the order 7 - in I.A.No.3645 of 2021 dated 07.0r.2022 and granted physicar visitation rights of Master Reyansh Singh to the respondent - petitioner or\ every working Saturday between 0l:00 pM to 05:00 pM whenever the respondent father comes to [ndia and whenever he is in Netherlands, the respondent father can have visitation rights of the child through video conferencing (online) as ordered by the Court below dated 30.11.2020.

8. The contention of the leamed counser for the petitioner was that the respondent was witlfully viotating the above orders of this Court. 9 The list of violations pointed out by the rearned counser for the petitioner in the present contempt are that (i) on 12.03.2023, the child was taughr to close the laptop and provoked ro abuse the petitioner - father. The report of the Advocate commissioner would disclose that: "It is submitted that both the petitioner and Respondents joine<J meeting on time and the meeting commenced at I I am. The petiticiner greeted the kid and shoued him the portable Philips karaoke. The petitioner even displayed a big Fortnite toy gun for the kid. After 3 minutes the kid ctosed the laptop. 1.hc Respondent No.l tumed on the video again. At 6 minutes the kid addressed the Petitioner as "Vivek, why do you make me talk to yog when I don,t want to talk to you". The kid said he was very angry and closed the laptop. Tho kid again closed the laptop with force and exited the meeting. After 5 minutcs. the Respondent No.l logged in again. The kid was seen hiding bchind the \ ,,? l: /-:-' 1L Dr.GRR, J cc 2350 2023 pillows. Tlie kil r,is seen thror'ving pillows at the Laptop The Respondent No.l did nol stol) the child while he was throwing things rt lantop' I immediatclv callerl ,hc counsel olthe Respondent No.l and told he' atrout the situation. I hzLr -, c r:stioned the Respondent No.l why she was tlL t s opping the kid fiorn larnrrging the laptop The kid startgd saying he hztes the petitioner. \ott.te rt,rtv sitting next to the lapbp exited the mccting lt u'as evident thc kitl url, heing provoked 'lhe Respondent No I argucJ vrith me when I asked her Icr to move the laptop to bedroom as the kid was rrot in good mood toda). lh.: petitioner intervened and expressed his argursh and requested that th(' nleeting should not be used as playground for sotne agenda I have ended session as per Honrl'le Family The meeting laste,l li)r one hour Court's order. '

10. The next violi'tion pointed out by the leamed counscl 'uas 23.04.2023, the chitil \\'as not in the frame' The respondent djd rrot answer to that' on any of the requesls trf the Advocate Commissioner to connec - tlre video call' The report of the AdYocate commissioner on the said date worrll clisclose that: .,[t is submit.tcd h,rt both the [,etitioner and Respondents joinc,l me 3ting on time and the nreetirts commenced at Il am as per schedule' Ihe Pctiti'rner and kid interacled for. I minutes. The kid started playing on floor. I uddenly Reyansh tolil tod:L' is not that great and closed the laptop After 9 mi lutes the kiil bggcd o.tt ' I scssion- 'fhe Petitioner expressed his anguish about the hehavior o1'tlre i rtl. I have informed the Pctitioner that I have bcing trying to reach out th,-' R.'.pondent's counscl through phone' The Responcle rt lcgged in aftcr l3 urirrtrtes rntl Reyansh was seen playing on the floor' -L'lo I'etitioner shared old i,ilc0s ol Reyansh dancing. Reyansh logged out of the meeting again. The ])eti1i,)1cr tvas very upset about how the session u'ets pr( 'ceeding The I'etltioncr rc i( that it is the dut), of Respondent No-l to train an,l prepare the kid to parlicipatc in the visitation. For the next 20 milrutes t 1er'l was no response front tlre Respondents sidc- The video was tumed off and they still I \i\l \ 72 Dr.GRR. J cc 2330 2023 I logged in the meeting. The Petitioner questioned me as to what I was doing as the Respondents were exhibiting this kind of behavior. I explained the Petitioner that I am helpless when Respondent does not comply to my instructions. The Petitioner said the parental alienation is happening with him. The video was turned off and there was no respohse from the Respondent No.l- I called the counsel for respondent No.l. I_told her everything that has happcned so [ar. 'Ihe respondents counsel prornised me that this kind of behavior of the Respondents will nor happen again, I have ended session after one hour as pcr Honb'lc Famill, Court,s order. I l. The violation pointed out by the leamed counsel for the petitioner on 30-04.2023 was that the respondent disobeyed the orders of the court and started video conference for name sake. The child was not even preient for two minutes. The Advocate commissioner instructed the respondent to have the child in the frame. But the same was violated by the respondent. The repofl of the Advocate Commissioner on the above date would disclose that: ''It is submitted that both the petitioner and Respondents joined meeting on time and the meeting commenced at I I am. There was no response from rhe Respondent's. It is further submitted that Master Reyansh voice could be heard from another robm. The Petitioner u,as patiently waiting for the kid to appear. After 23 minutesrl spoke to the peritioner and told him about the status of the meeting. After 27 minutes the kid appeared in front of the Laptop. Hc was there for less than a minute and left. The petitioner shared some videos to grab the attention of the kid. The kid was holding a battery in his hand. Reyansh lelt the screen and video was turned off. Till the end of the session Reyansh did not appear again- It is observed that someone was sitting next to the laptop and tuming off the video. The petitioner complained that the meeting was disturbed deliberately. I have ended session after one hour. 'Ihe meetins lasted for one hour as pcr Hon'ble Family Courts Order.,, / ,l 13 Dr.GRR, J ':c 7350 2O23 12. The next violatior pointed out was on 07.05.2023 stating thrlt the child was not at all pres,:nt lor the entire meeting The report of th': Advocate Commission on the sait' late was as such: "It is submitt,:d th:LL both the Petitioner and Rcspondents joined rn:et:ng on time and the meetirrQ commenced at I I am. 'fhe kid did not join tlle mr ieting. His voice could bi: hcard from other room. I have called out the Il( spondent Petitioner express ed his No.1 multiple tinle', brrt there was no response' anguish regarding tlrc issucs faced in the meeting. The kid was not s len at all. The meeting lasrecl i,r one hour as per Hon'ble Family Courts Ordcr' ' -fhe

13. The next violatiotl was stated to be on 14.05.2013, u1-rerein it was reported that the chil,l rvas present only for a few minutes ar d the only interaction was the aL rses hurled by the child to the father as s(jmeone was teaching him the satne The report of the Advocate commissiorrel on the said date is as follows "lt is submittcd thrt both the Petitioncr and Respondents joined n-eeling on time and the m,:etirtrt commenced at lI am. The kid appeared in ti]nt of the laptop after ll rnirrutes and started speaking against the Petitioner s:yi[g that the Petitioner as otrline Dater and called ''ass"- [ have intervened aLrrl s;'oke to the kid about lhd toys. It is clearly observed that kid was taught hou to 'alk by the pcrson sitt.i;rg rtrt to the Laptop. The kid again appeared in lrrnt of the laptop after .]zl mit.rrtes and started talking something. I told to the I id that Petitioner rvas his .r.hcr and he loves him that's why he is on the laptop I have called out the Rc.pondent No.l rnultiple times for helping out the kid to ,,lrteract but thcre rv,ts no reply at all. I have ended the session. the r'tecting lasted for one hrrtLr as per Hon'ble Farnily Courts Order. t4 Dr.GRR, J cc 2350 2O23 It is further submitted to this Hon'ble court that till date more than 60 meeting sessions were Eoiiducted but the child doesn't know the name of the Petitioner properly- [t is further submitted that the kid never addressed the Petitioner by his name br as papa and dad. Since last year after Petitioner has provided laptop to kid the bond berween petitioner and Reyansh was slightly better. But still in many scenarios the child looks lor cues from the Respondent No.1 . It is evident that Master Reyansh mainly listens to Respondent No.l. The kid abuses his father i.e. the Petitioner many times. It is clearly evident and recorded in the video that the Respondent No.l never corrected the child ' wheuever the child calls the pelitioner by a different name or abuses him. It is further submitted that: the Petitioner's counsel informed me that the Hon'ble Farnily court has strictly instructed the Respondent No.l . to follow the courts orders and cooperate lbr meeting. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.l never asked the child to talk to the petitioner. She would only ask to sit in lront of laptop, though she is next to the laptop and can ctearly hear all the conversation that is going on between the petitioner and child- The Respondcnt No.l on many occasions does not respond when she was called out by the Advocate Comrnissioner. Respondent No.l at the best only sees that the meeting lasts lor one hour and takes proper care that Reyansh is in frame of laptop i.e. whether the kid is visihlc to Petitioner or not. The Respondent's lole in assisting to develop a father-child relationship between Petitioner and Reyansh during the online visitation meeting is srill NtL. In most of the sessionlthe me(eting ends from Rcspondent's side by not saying proper bye to petitioner but by only closing the lid ol the laptop. It is fu(her submitted that the Respondent No-l on last visitation closed the laptop while Reyansh was standing in front of it. This indicates that Respondenr No.l is not at all interested in online visitation and on many instances Respondent No.1 never responds to Advocate Commissioner's requests or plea during the meeting. I pray this Hon'ble court to counsel the Respondent No.l about the interaction that has to bc done betrveen rvith Petitioner and child during the course of these online visitations. I f'urlher pray the Hon'ble court to counsel the Respondent No.1 as to how to de.velop father child bond as that would help child a lot while intcracting rvith his father i.e. the Petitioner herein. lt is

7./ ,/. 15 Dr.GRR, J cc 2350 2023 further submiltcd Lhat all the above information was given to Rr)spr)ndent No.1's counscl. 1'lLe counsel for the Respondent tried to explain et'crlt ting ro Respondent Ntr.l but there was no improvement seen during tne online visitation meeting: fhe Petitioner witnessed un-parliamentary langrage from thc child. Il i. h::lrt breaking for any father if his chitd insults hirn- Tl-re Petitioner expriss'|lc his anguish and complained that parental alienlrtion is happcning r.i'ith hill It is further submitted to this Hon'ble coufi thar in;pite of mentioning cver\. lilne in the notice the Respondent No t stilI doeslt I Irut toys which the Petittonrlt gave to the kid during the session This makes child feel bored and he ,.)annot interact or play with the petitioncr properll'' Both the Petitioner attd Rt s londents counsels communicated with their t lients and accordingll di.l tlreir best to see that the online visitation mectiillis 'vent on properly. 1'hc \'lc.:ting If), password and notices were sent to Rt slrordent on her mobile trutntr:r and through e-mail d to the petitioneiirreeerr et' all the excellent.vi vek[Dg mail.corn ancl thc l(es londent notices via his e.r'rail ie No.l received all hcr notices to her e-mail ie sirybc!ryiI! Ll l4'.:!r !r'il corn l am herewith subrrlitting this repo( and copies rccordings of onlinr vi ;itations in DVDs with ho.h the counsels of rcspondent and petitioner and this Hon'ble FamilY Coun 'n .-c.) 04 2023 '"

14. lt was fr-rr:ther submitted that the petitioner travelled i om India to Netherlands on 20.0 i.2023 and his travel to Netherlands was inlbrrned to the respondent two days in advance' It was further submitted thar arl out of order wasmovedbefbr.ettreCourtforongoingdisobediencearrdtlrerespondent submitted contra{lictc'r}' and inconsistent submissions throt gh her counsel stating that the rneetr ngs were not happening, as the child got hral stroke and on asking to produce tl'rr: child, it was submitted that he was in sttr:rnrer camp' The Family Court, Judge asked for the presence of the chitd to exalrrin() the child' -/ 16 Dr.GRR, J cc 2J50 2023

15. It was further submitted that the child was produced before the iearned Judge, Family court and the learned Judge, Family couft observed that the child's behavior was not normal. 16' on 02.06.2023, the petitioner sought the indulgence of the court for ongoing violation and filed the conrempt petition. The Famiry court gave oral orders on 14.06.2023 ro produce the child on 16.06.2023 at02:30 pM, but the said orders of the couft were also disobeyed. It was further submitted that the petrtroner came to India for a period of one month in June-July, 2023 and the petitioner was only given one meeting of 30 minutes on 17.06.2023 that too on strong indulgence of the Family Court for compliance of the orders. On 25-06-2023, the petitioner joined the meeting from Nerherlands but the respondent refused to comply any of the instructions of the Advocate Commissioner and did not answer to his requests and not produced the child. on 02.07.2023 also, the child was not produced. on 09.07.2023, rhe Advocate commissioner reported that when the respondent did not attend the meeting, he called the respondent's counser and the counser mentioned that her client was not interested in participating in the onrine visitation and they were approaching the High Court for modifl,ing the order. [t was further submitted that the child was not produced for online meetings on 16.07 .2023, 23.07 .2023 and,

30.07.2023 and a speaking order was passed by the Family Court on 06-0g.ZO23 instructing the counsel for respondent-T_o,.ensure that the orders were obeyed by ,l -7 t t7 DT.GRR' J cc 2J50 2023 her client. It was lurth'rr submitted that on 18'08'2023' the resporldent remained absent in Family L',.rurt even after strict instructions of the cour[ to comply all the existing orders irnc lailed to comply the same on 20'08'202-l rrntl03'09'2023 also. The Advocatc (. lmmissioner informed the respondent' br rt th': respondent kept claiming that s he would not follow the access ordr:rs' as she had approach6d the Fligh ,.1ruft by filing modification of the order in (.R.P.No.291 of 2022 ll . All these viola'i'rns pointed out by the petitioner and th: r'rpofts of the Advocate Comlnissi(rnel' on the said dates would show that thr: r'espondent blatantty violated the c'rders of this Court passed in C RP'No 19l o1 2022 and had denied the petition.:5 access of visitation to the child'

18. The contenliol,s ol the learned counsel for the lespoltdent about the criminal cases filed by her against the petitioner cannot bl r ground for violating the ortlers of the Court' The FIRs or the charg r :;heet are not conclusiveproofofl.,randingthepetitionerasacriminalford.:n.-ingacCeSSto thechildandlordisc'be1:ingtheordersoftheCourtonthepretcxtolthealleged FIRs.

19. The Hon'bie \pex Court in Mr' Inaobi Singh Maibam v' Huidrom Ningol Maibam Ongbi Omilas arising out of SLP (Criminatl 'Jo.5025 of 2017 'Clriminal Appcal |Jc.l:'6tl of 20 t 7, dated 04.09 2017 -> i I 18 Dr.GRR, J cc 2350 2023 and the judgment of the High Courr of Chattisgarh in Nimish S. Agraival v. Smt. Rahi Agrawale, and rhe High Court olDelhi in Rajesh Kumari v Dhiraj and othersl0 held that criminal cases and allegations even of serious nature unless proven to be true in due course of trial is not a bar on visitation rights and custody of minor. The respondent's repeated evasions of compliance of the orders of the Court would show a blatant disregard for judicial authority reflecting her unwillingness to co-operate with the legal process.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prithavi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others (cited supra) by referring to irs earlier judgment in Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather [AIR 1994 SC 2252], held that: "lt was held that ifa party is aggrieved by the order, he should take prompt steps to invoke appellate proceedings and cannot ignore the order and plead about Lhe difficLrlties ol implementation at the time contempr procccdings are initiated. If any. party concemed is aggrieved by the order which in its opinior is \4rong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasiblc, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness oi wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wlong the order has to be obeyed. frlouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Couft cannot traverse beyond the order. non-cornpliance of s,hich is alleged. In othet ' FAM. No. I 8 0f 2019 dated I I .05.2022 '"2023 SCC Online Del 5430 19 Dr-GRR, J cc 2J50 2023 words. t c:rf llot say what should not have been done or wh':t should ltari: heen done. [t cannot traverse beyond the order' It canrlof tes] correctness or otherwise of the order or girc additirral I rection or delete any direction- lhat rrould trc ercrcis ng r e r ierv j urisdiction white dealing with an applicatkrn lbr inilrati')tt of contempt proceedings The same would he impimriss b e and indefensible.'' 2l . 'f he contt'trtior of the leamed counsel for the respon(le nt that they prefeffed moclification of the order of this Court in C'R'P No t'9' of 2022 cannot be a groull(l lt'r non-compliance of the orders passed by thi; ( ourt' The rcspondcnt need 10 cc mply the orders of this Court till they \\ ere mod lled' evcn if therc is .just ilicat ior in fiting the petition for modification'

22. 'l hc tlon'ble a,pex Court in Amit Kumar Das, Joint l;ecretary' Baitanik, a Registered Society v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagttre (lharitable Trust (citod su;rra) iLlso while considering the case laws on the : ait point' by relerring to its earricr j ,rdgments, held that: " li. \ ou. iL look at case law on the point' In Sudhir Vasuder':r vs. M.Gt,rrge Ravishekaran (2014) 3 SCC 3731, a 3-Judg: BenL:h ol ,hit Cou.t observed as under, in the cortext ct cre i',- i ic , r rontempt jurisdiction: - '- l ) The power vested in the High Courts as u.l as this Court to punish for contempt is a s;,:.:ial and rare power available both under the Cl ,rstitution as well as the Contempt ol Courts \.rl 1971....... The very nature of the pou'er cl sls a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the s: r c rvith the greatest of care and caution. This is rlso necessary as, more often than not, arlirrdication of a contempt plea involves .r 20 Dr.GRR, J cc 235O 2023 process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effec1 of the order in respcct of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have becn flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to w,hether there has been any disobedience or wiltful violation of the same. Decided issues cannol. be reopened; nor can the plea ofequities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considcring a contempt plea the polver available to the Court in other conective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already. expressed should be issued by the Court rvhile exercising jurisdiction in the domain of thc conlempl law: such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vcsted in the Court, as noticed above.. -.."

15. Significantly, the 2-Judge Bench had merely echoed the affirmation of the legal position by another 2-Judge Bench ol this Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. @) Ltd. t(1996) 4 SCC 6221 Thc principte that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt tvas reiterated therein. Refbrence rvas made by the Bench to Mohammad ldris vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji [(1984) 4 SCC 216]. rvherein ir rvas held rhat undergoing punishment for contemp! would not mean that thc Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions lor remedying and rectiflin_q the rhings done in violation of irs orders. fherefore, the prineiplg that stands cnstallized by these judgments is that, in addition to punishing a contemnor [or 27 disobevin: its orders' the Court can also ensure that such cont-cnlnot does not continue to enjoy the benefits of krir " disobediercc by merety sufferhg the punishment meted out t' ' him ' DT.GRR' J cr 2350 2023 ''

23. Thus, in this ( c'ntempt Petition' this Court carulot travel be1'orrd the four comers of the order rrlleged to have flouted' As the report of rh'" Advoiate Commissioner is supporting the contentions of the petitioner ard his counsel about the violatiorrs committed by the respondent' this Cc,ur deems it appropriate to punish the respondent under Section 10 to 12 ofthe ( iontempt of Courts Act for violar'ions of orders of this Court and direct her to pa''' an amount of Rs.2,000i- 1o1' grr':h violation committed by her on the abcve dates from 26.02.2023 onrvardr; to till date. The respondent is also direct':d to fumish a bond of Rs.2.00.000,_ in tavor of Registrar (Judicial) of this c')ur. as security for future compliatrce of the orders of this Court within a peri'rd of four (04) weeks from thc dat(r of receipt of a copy of this order' If she fails t'r comply the same, she is liahte to be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

24. In the result. lhe Contempt Case is allowed holding the rt:sp'cndent guilty of the contempt of the orders of this Court and directing her to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-forea':'rviolationcommittedbyherontheabov':datesfrom 26.02.2023 onu'at.ls to titl date. As the report of the Adr,ocate ( ]ommissioner would disclosc thirt more than 60 sessions were conducte'd till date' the 77 Dr.cRR, J cc 23so-2023 respondent-contomnor is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Twenty Thousand) to the petitioner for viorating the orders passed by this court and the respondent is arso directed to fumish a bond of Rs.2, 00,000/_ in favor of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security tbr future compliance of the orders of this court within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' If she fa,s to comply the same, she is riable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of six months. No order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneo shall stand closed. us applications pending in this petirion, if any, SD/- I.NAGALAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 Smt. Smriti Singh, D/o.Shri Ram Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, Occ Housewife, R/o, Flat No.106, Block_E, BRC Sri. Hemadurga Siva Hills. Narsingi Puppalaguda Main Road, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana _ 500 089.

2. The Registrar (Judiciar), High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad 3 One CC to Sri B. Subash, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies karni I'SL w '[r":- /l;,, s' s*s /-, t' \- \. :'-, ':. .'.--, -, ,,nrrr_ -+- - ''-.. -'-.:':;i-' , HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER GC.No.2350 of 2023 ALLOWING'I'HE CONTEMPT CASE oro{id' F.w