Key Points: - The Court discusses using Article 142 to do complete justice and prevent obstruction to justice in contempt of court cases. (!) , (!) - The paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the child, not the parents’ rights, including moral/ethical welfare and the child’s physical well-being. (!) , (!) - The child cannot be treated as property; courts exercise parens patriae to ensure welfare, even when statutory provisions exist. (!) , (!) - The petition found that the consent order dated 3.5.2008 was allegedly violated, with evidence of tutoring and alienation of the child toward the father. (!) , (!) - The court permitted the contemnor to seek custody or other relief in appropriate forums, recognizing the need to adjudicate custody in light of changed circumstances. (!) , (!) - The court concluded that the consent order has proved unworkable due to non-compliance and tutoring, warranting consideration of modification or review in an appropriate forum. (!) , (!) - Observations that mutual settlements cannot override welfare principles in custody matters; res judicata does not apply to child custody. (!) , (!) - The court emphasized the need to act expeditiously and without being bound by prior writ or consent orders when the child’s welfare requires it. (!) , (!)

What is the extent of the Court's inherent powers under Article 142 to do complete justice in contempt of court related to child custody?

What are the welfare considerations and parens patriae jurisdiction governing custody and visitation rights in contempt proceedings?

What remedies or future actions are permitted when a consent order in Lok Adalat has allegedly been violated regarding visitation rights of a non-custodial parent?