High Court · 2025

Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.10.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABALCONT P No.2699 of 2025Mr.Sanjeev VermaS/o.Sushil Kumar Verma, Door No.10/12, 25th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. ...Petitioner/Applicant/PetitionerVsMrs.Abirami SW/o. Sanjeev Verma, 514/D, Sri Ashirvad, 18th Street, 4th Sector, KK Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. ...Respondent/Respondent/RespondentPrayer : This petition has been filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for her wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 10.09.2024 in A.No.3219 of 2024 in O.P.No.370 of 2024.Page No.1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025For Petitioner(s): M/s.Kadambri SureshFor Respondent(s): M/s.Rohini Ravikumar ORDERThis petition has been filed by the petitioner/father to punish the respondent/mother for her wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 10.09.2024 in A.No.3219 of 2024 in O.P.No.370 of 2024.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the father of the minor children namely Ms. Ananya Verma and Ms. Samanvi Verma. The petitioner filed the main Original petition for custody of the minor children and for appointment of guardian. While so, this Court passed an order dated 10.09.2024 and when referring the matter for mediation, this Court ordered that the children should be brought to the "Express Avenue Mall, No.17, Pattullos Road, Express Estate, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 002 on every Sunday at 12.00 noon to 02.00 p.m., The elder daughter has been staying with the father and after the said order passed by this Court, the visitation happened only for few weeks until December 2024 and the respondent never relied to the messages sent by the petitioner requesting for the Page No.2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025visitation of his younger daughter Samanvi. The respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this Court by refusing to allow the visitation as directed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition to punish her for her willful and deliberate disobedience to the order passed by this Court. 3. The respondent has filed her counter by denying all the averments made in the affidavit and also stated that in fact, the petitioner has only breached the order of this Court and this Court passed an order as mutually consented by both the parties that the petitioner may visit his children in the Express Avenue Mall, No.17, Pattullos Road, Express Estate, Thousand Lights, Chennai-600 002. Despite several requests made by the respondent, the petitioner, without the knowledge of the respondent, took the children to his house, where he is living with his second wife creating a hostile and confusing environment for the young girls. On 04.01.2025, the elder daughter made a panic call, asking the respondent to pick her up from the petitioner's house due to issues with the petitioner. Further, a call came after the petitioner had abused the young girl physically, mentally and Page No.3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025emotionally. Both the daughters were present at the time of the incident and further refused to stay with the petitioner. However, the elder daughter understood the reality of the situation and has come back to stay and support the respondent and stood testimony for the cruelty inflicted by the petitioner. From that particular day, the minor Samanvi, who got scared, has resisted the visitation. The petitioner did not make any attempt to call even on the birthdays of their children and they have clearly expressed that they shall not want to be in company of the petitioner. It is not her necessity to separate the children from the petitioner as both the children have grown up and as a mother, she is noway influencing her daughters not to visit or not to show the children to the petitioner. The respondent never had any intention to alienate the children in any way from their father and that is the reason, she consented earlier for the order dated 10.09.2024. The order was consented for and the petitioner is abide by the order of the Court and he only breached the order. Considering the emotional distress and mental agony faced by her daughters due to the acts of the petitioner and considering the well being of the daughters, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Page No.4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 20254. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.5. According to the petitioner, the respondent refused to produce the children to visit the petitioner as per the order passed by this Court dated 10.09.2024. The respondent denied the said allegation and according to her, the children refused for visitation due to scare on the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner also failed to mention about the date on which the respondent failed to produce the children as per the order of this Court. According to the respondent, as the children got scared, have resisted the visitation. While so, there are no records to show that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. The respondent mother has complied the subsequent order passed by this Court without any objection and the said conduct would reveal the obedience of the order of this Court by the respondent. In view of the above stated reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no evidence to prove the breach of order of this Court by the respondent.6. During the pendency of this petition, this Court had passed an Page No.5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025order on 26.09.2025 that: “4. Considering the relationship between the parties and that this Court already passed an order by granting visitation rights to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to pass the following interim order:(i) The respondent is directed to produce the child on 28.09.2025 and 05.10.2025 at “Express Avenue Mall, No.17, Pattullos Road, Express Estate, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 002,” from 1.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.(ii) The respondent is at liberty to be present during the visitation hours.”7. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wants to extend that order dated 26.09.2025 to visit the children weekly once i.e., on every Sunday 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly objected and stated that already the petitioner has not complied with the order and breached the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2025 and he had taken the children to his house without permission of the Court and the petitioner failed to pay the School fees for the children. Therefore, she strongly objected to extend the order dated 26.09.2025.8. Since the respondent had already filed a counter in the main Page No.6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025petition, the matter has to be heard elaborately. Till such time, the petitioner has to be given visitation rights on every Sunday from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. at Nexus Vijaya Mall (Forum Mall), No. 183, Great Southern Trunk Road, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 026, until further orders.9. The petitioner/father is directed to pay the School fees of the children as per the bills submitted by the respondent/mother after verification, within one month from the date of submission of the bills.10. In view of the above observations, this Contempt Petition is closed. No Costs.22.10.2025(1/2)dk / mjsToMrs. Abirami. SW/o. Sanjeev Verma,514/D, Sri Ashirvad, 18th Street, 4th Sector, KK Nagar,Chennai-600 078.Page No.7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 2025P.DHANABAL,J.dk / mjsCONT P No. 2699 of 2025Page No.8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.2699 of 202522.10.2025[1/2]Page No.9 of 9