CONT.CAS(C)/346/2012 of KRISHAN VERMA Vs MEETA VERMA

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2012-08-24
Case number: 497 of 2012

Parties

KRISP-IAN VERMAPetitionerTtirough: Petitioner in person (PETITIONER)
MEETA VERMARespondentThrough: Mr Varun Kr. Jain, Adv. with respondent inperson (RESPONDENT)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Judgment

$-1-3>!<IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

+CONT.CAS(C) 346/2012, 497/2012 & 514/2012

KRISP-IAN VERMAPetitionerTtirough: Petitioner in person

versus

MEETA VERMARespondentThrough: Mr Varun Kr. Jain, Adv. with respondent inperson.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

ORDER

%24.08.2012

CM No. 13965/2012 (Exemption)in CONT.CAS.fC)514/2012

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

CONT.CAS.(C)346/2012 & CM No. 9528/2012fstav)CONT.CAS.(C)497/2012CONT.CAS.fC)514/2012

In the contempt petition bearing no. 497/2012 compliance is sought oforder dated10.05.2005 passedby the FamilyCourt, Rohini, Delhi inGuardianship Petition no. 10/2012.The grievance of the petitioner is thatdespite directionto produce the minor in court on every 4"' Saturdayof themonth between 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. in order to enable the petitioner to have accessto the child, the respondent continues to violate the order.

As far as the other two contempt petitions are concerned, which iscontempt petition nos. 346/2012 and 514/2012, compliance is sought ofundertaking dated 30.11.2011. The saidundertakingby the respondenttoCONT.CAS(C)346/2012,497/2012& 514/2012Page 1of2

produce the child was given in the same guardianship proceedings which havesubsequently been re-numberedas 43/2010.In my view, repeated filing ofseparate contempt petitions will not serve any puipose.The main grievance ofthe petitioner emanates from order dated 10.05.2005.Therefore, the contemptpetition nos. 346/2012 and 514/2012 are, accordingly, disposed of

On the previous date, i.e., 08.08.2012 I had issued notice in the contemptpetition no. 497/2012 pursuant to which the petitioner has had access to the childtoday, who was brought to court by the respondent.This direction to therespondentwas issued in contempt petition no. 346/2012, which has beendisposed of today.Learned counsel for the respondent says that an opportunity be given forfding reply in contempt petition no. 497/2012.It is ordered accordingly.Respondent is at liberty to file reply to the contempt petition within threeweeks from today.Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date.-In the interregnum, the parties are referred to Delhi High Court,Mediation & Conciliation Centre to attempt an amicable settlement in thematter.Partiesand their counsel shall appear before the mediator on07.09.2012 at 2.00 p.m. Respondent shall bring the child to the mediation centreas and when so requested by the mediator. The mediator shall file the reportbefore the next date of hearing.

List on 19.03.2013.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

AUGUST24,2012