IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA C.C.C. No. 1674 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
MR. SANDEEP NAIR, SON OF SHASHI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8TH FLOOR, VANSHIKA APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY LINK ROAD, KADAVANTARA P.O., COCHIN – 682 020.
... COMPLAINANT (BY SRI ABHILESH J., ADVOCATE) AND:
MS. LAKSHMY S DAUGHTER OF A. SUNDARESAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT J 237, BRIGADE COURTYARD, JALAHALLI, NEAR HMT GROUND, BENGALURU – 560 013.
...ACCUSED THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED HEREIN IS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR DENYING INTERIM CUSTODY OF MINOR WARD MASTER VIVAAN TO THE COMPLAINANT / FATHER ON 29.04.2018 AND ON 03.05.2018 AND THUS INDULGING IN REPEATED AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE II – ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN G & W.C.NO.339 OF 2016 (ANNEXURE – D).
THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed on the ground that there is willful disobedience in complying with the order dated 28.04.2018, passed by the Family Court in G And W.C.No.339 of 2016.
2. In terms of the said order, the respondent was directed to hand over the child to the petitioner on 29.04.2018 at 9.00 a.m. and the child to be returned to the respondent at 6.00 p.m. on 12.05.2018. Since the same was not done, the instant petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the order is disobeyed. Hence, the respondent is liable for contempt of court.
4. On considering the contention, we find no merit in this petition. The order said to have been disobeyed was passed on 28.04.2018. This petition was filed on 17.07.2018. It appears that the office objections were not complied with for the last one and half years. On a specific question, the complainant’s counsel submits that efforts for production were made. On considering the reasons assigned, we do not find any good ground to entertain the petition after a lapse of one and half years.
5. It is apparent that the petitioner has deliberately delayed the proceedings. The reasons assigned by him is that there were efforts to negotiate the matters which ultimately failed. If the reasons were to be accepted, then it is evident that the delay is only because of this ground. Therefore, we are of the view that such a belated claim should not be accepted.
6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to consider the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj