SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439661

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIEF JUSTICE AND C.M. POONACHA
SRI VIJAY S – Appellant
Versus
SMT. KARUNA. P – Respondent
CCC 409/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 409 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. SRI VIJAY S

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

S/O. H.N. SANGAMESWARA

NO.517, ITI LAYOUT

OPP. RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE ARCH

GURUSARVABHOUMA NAGARA

BENGALURU - 560 039

…COMPLAINANT

(BY MS. ASHIKA, ADVOCATE FOR

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI Y., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

signed by

VEERENDRA 1. SMT. KARUNA. P

KUMAR K M

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

Location: High

W/O. SRI VIJAY. S,

Court of

Karnataka D/O. LATE PARMASHIVAIAH

R/AT NO. 141, NEW NO.27

2ND MAIN ROAD

3 AND 4TH CROSS

OPP. ARUN STUDIO

CHAMARAJPETE

BENGALURU - 560 018

…ACCUSED

(BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CIVIL CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN G&WC NO.90/2022 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PUNISH AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED AND SENTENCE HER TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR COMMITTING CONTEMPT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 (ANNEXURE-A) & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in G & WC No.90/2022. The operative part of the said order is as under:

"I.A.No.4 filed under Section 151 of CPC read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act and I.A.No.6 filed under Section 151 of CPC are hereby allowed in part.

The respondent/father is permitted to visit the child Master Somasohan V., on daily basis and the petitioner/mother is directed to suggest the place and timings of visitation, according to the child's schedule and convenience, and also convenient timings of the respondent/father and once in fortnight, the respondent/father is permitted to visit the child along with his parents i.e., grandparents of the child.

The respondent/father is permitted to take the child along with the mother, with prior intimation to the petitioner/mother by taking prior appointment of the doctor, to take either second medical opinion or providing better medical treatment to the child.

Request for video calls is hereby rejected.

No order as to costs."

2. The complainant alleges that despite an unequivocal direction for grant of visitation rights, the accused has not complied with the same and has not facilitated for visitation of the child.

3. The accused has filed an affidavit inter-alia stating that she would take the child to Krishna Rao Park, Basavanagudi at 04.00 pm., on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays as the minor child is required to attend therapy sessions on all other days. The complainant is at liberty to meet the child at Krishna Rao Park, Basavanagudi on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant also stated that the complainant is desirous to attend the therapy sessions for the child who is a special child. The accused has also filed an affidavit setting out the schedule of the therapy sessions proposed to be attended by the minor child. The complainant is also at liberty to attend the said sessions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that although the accused is fully committed to comply with the order, the complainant himself has not complied the orders passed by the Family Court and has not paid the maintenance amount of Rs.75,000/- per month and is in arrears of over Rs.17 lacks. She states that the accused has already taken steps for enforcing the said order. In this regard, we do not consider it apposite to pass any order in this pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top