Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
VIPIN DAS P.D. REPRESENTED BY HIS POA SOPHIA DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULAVUKADU – Respondent
Con.Case(C) 1513 2023
Contempt - Custody - Annexure-A2 Judgment - The court interpreted directions regarding parental communication and modified them for practicality, emphasizing compliance in matters involving custodial rights and communication timings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged non-compliance with court directions regarding communication with his children, as stipulated in a previous judgment. The children's mother, currently in the U.K., was accused of obstructing calls during designated times, prompting the petitioner to file a contempt case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no willful disobedience of the prior order, noting that the father sometimes attempted to contact the children during inappropriate times. It modified the call timings to accommodate the children's activities, directing compliance with the adjusted schedule.
Issues: The primary issue was whether there was contempt due to non-compliance with court directions about communication between the petitioner and his children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that practical adjustments to prior orders are permissible to enhance compliance and address the needs of children and parents, thus emphasizing the importance of effective communication in custody matters.
Final Decision: The contempt case was disposed of with modified communication directions.
J U D G M E N T
Alexander Thomas, J.
The above Contempt of Court case has been filed alleging non-
compliance of the directions in the order passed by this Court in Annexure-A2 judgment of this Court dated 18.11.2022, rendered by this Court in W.P.(Crl) (Habeas Corpus) No.925/2022 filed by the petitioner herein.
2. Heard Smt.Anila Umesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband/father of the children) and Sri.V.K.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein (wife/mother of the children). The operative portion of the directions issued by this Court contained in para 11 of Annexure-A2 judgment, which reads as follows:
“11. Further, it is ordered that, so long as the petitioner's children are either with his wife or R3 and R4, then it shall be ensured that the petitioner is permitted to interact with both the children through audio and video calls between 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on all Fridays and Saturdays. The above said direction shall be strictly complied with by the petitioner's wife as well as R3 and R4, as the case may be. So also, the petitioner's wife, R3 and R4 will permit the petitioner to visit the children on weekends, after prior intimation to his wife and R3 or R4, as the case may be.”
3. After hearing both sides, it appears that the petitioner (husband) and his parents have already filed O.P.No.3704/2022 before the Family Court, Ernakulam in the matter of guardianship of the children. The main complaint appears to be is that the directions issued in para 11 of Annexure-A2 judgment, in the matter of audio and video calls will be made by the father to the children, are being denied by the conduct of the parents of the mother of the children. We are told that the respondent mother is now in U.K. and the children are with her parents in Vypin, Ernakulam. Further, the petitioner father is now in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E as part of his employment.
4. Sri.V.K.Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no willful disobedience of the directions in Annexure-A2 judgment and many times, the petitioner father is calling the children by audio and video calls at a time when they are playing and problem can be solved, if the timings are changed, so that instead of 6:00 p.m to 6:30 p.m. on all Fridays and Saturdays, the father can make audio and video calls to the children on Fridays and Saturdays, between 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the directions issued by this Court in para 11 of Annexure-A2 judgment will stand modified by ordering that the audio and video calls can be made by the father to the children, on all Fridays and Saturdays, between 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and the mother of the children or her parents as the case may be, should comply with the said directions. In case, there is any further difficulties in the matter, it is for the party concerned having such grievance to approach the Family Court, Ernakulam for the redressal of such grievances. In such scenario, the Family Court may adjudicate the issues untrammeled and uninfluenced by the view taken by this Court in Annexure-A2 judgment.
No other orders and directions are called for.
With these observations and directions, the above Contempt of Court case will stand disposed of.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1513/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P. (CRL.) (HABEAS CORPUS) 925/2022 DATED 27.10.2022.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(CRL.)(HABEAS CORPUS)
925/2022 DATED 18.11.2022.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
12.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
19.12.2022.
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT IN I.A.9315/2022 IN OP 3704/2022 DATED 8.3.2023.
ANNEXUREA6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE FAM
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
