##PAGE1##

$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010484602026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1858/2026 ISHU SHOREY .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

versus MEGHA VERMA .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 07.10.2026 CM APPL. 69693/2026

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 1858/2026

3. The present Petition under Sections 2(b)/10/12 of Contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed for contempt Order dated 07.09.2026 whereby the learned Family Judge had passed the following order:

“PW-1, Sh. Ishu Shorey is examined-in-chief and his cross- examination is deferred at the request of counsel for respondent on the ground that he has not received the copy of evidence affidavit. Respondent is burdened with cost of Rs.5,000/-, payable to petitioner on the next date.

Application of petitioner seeking custody of child for 10.09.2026 is pending. Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent, in presence of respondent, submits no objection to the application. However, respondent, who is present, submits that the child has to attend the Play School on 10.09.2026 in morning for celebrating his birthday. Now a consensus is reached, as per which the following arrangement is arrived at:-

It is agreed that respondent shall bring the child to the Children Meeting Room, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi at about 12' Noon of 10.09.2026 from where the petitioner will collect the child. The petitioner shall return the child back to the custody of respondent on the same day of 10.09.2026 at about 05:00 pm in Children Meeting Room, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

List for cross-examination of PW-1 on 08.12.2026.

Copy of order be also given dasti.”

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in compliance of the order, the Respondent had brought the child for celebration, but she obstructed the Petitioner from taking the child, as directed by the Order and insisted that the celebration being made in the Court premises itself.

5. The Petitioner had approached the learned Family Judge, who had tried to counsel the child, as well as, the Respondent despite which there could be no effective compliance of the Order dated 07.09.2026.

6. From the submissions made by the Petitioner, it is evident that there is no wilful disobedience for the impugned Order, in so much as the Respondent had produced the child. The Child is not a commodity who can be compelled and forced to have effective meeting; it is a Child who needs to be nurtured and with whom a bonding has to be developed by the Petitioner, to be able to have effective meeting. Merely because the meeting was not to the satisfaction of the Petitioner, he cannot claim that there is a contempt by the Respondent.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the Contempt Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Principal Family Judge, who may counsel the parties and ensure that effective meeting are held, in terms of its Orders.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/dss