Court respects settlements between parties in custody disputes and emphasizes the need for compliance with court orders.

ORAL ORDER

This Court by order dated 07.07.2025 had issued bailable warrants against the mother and directed the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, to ensure that the mother and the daughter are produced before this Court on 09.07.2025 at 10:30 a.m. At 10:30 a.m., it was informed by the Police that the mother has informed that she will come and appear before the Court. But as she was not present, this Court had directed the officers to ensure that the mother is present before this Court. At 02:30 p.m., the mother is present before the Court.

2. It is submitted by the mother that as stated in the report by the Child Protection Officer, the mother's phone was not switched off and she has not received any communication from NIMHANS and there is no deliberate violation on the part of the mother. It is submitted that at all times she is ready and willing to abide by the orders of the Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father has placed the Memorandum of Settlement between the parties dated 09.07.2025 before this Court, whereby the parties have amicably settled all disputes including the custody, visitation and other litigation pending between the parties. It is submitted that in the light of the Memorandum of Settlement, no further orders are required to be passed in this case and in the light of the same, they will be filing appropriate petitions before the appropriate Court to withdraw the cases.

4. In the order dated 26.06.2025, this Court had referred to the letter dated 16.06.2025 forwarded by the District Child Protection Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Bangalore West, Anekal Taluk, which reads thus:

“In reference to the High Court order dated 05.06.2025, officials from our office visited Neeladri Road, Electronics City Phase 1, on 16.06.2025 (Monday) to take the child, Swadha Sahay, to NIMHANS as directed by the Hon'ble Court.

However, upon arrival, Mrs. Amrita Sinha (Respondent) was uncooperative. Her counsel, Mr. Nithin, informed our officers that neither the mother nor the child would accompany the officials, stating that the High Court order was not acceptable to them.

Despite our officers' efforts to explain the necessity to comply with the Court's directions, the Respondent and her counsel refused cooperation, thereby obstructing the execution of the order.”

5. This Court had discussed about the conduct of the advocate for the respondent/mother basing on the report placed by the Child Protection Officer and asked him to file an affidavit by 04.07.2025. On the last occasion, when the matter came up, it was submitted that the affidavit is ready and he will file it. Today, the affidavit is placed before this Court, wherein it is stated that at any point of time he has never stated that the order of the Court is not acceptable to him. However, at paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, it is stated that "if the District Child Protection Officer or their representative would have asked me about the order dated 15.06.2025, since the same was to be challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court the same was accordingly challenged by way of SLP.No.17006/2025, the same would have been intimated. It cannot be construed that the respondent and myself are not accepting the order of this Court and are in obstruction of executing the order of this Court. I have only been truthful to this Court and to any other person assigned by Hon'ble Court with regard to this writ petition." In the same affidavit at paragraph No.12, it is stated that "the observations made by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.05.2025 be striked off or recalled for the same shall reflect/construed negatively as against me and the respondent. Further, e-mail dated 05.07.2025 by the advocate for