JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

Even though there are various allegations and averments made and urged in this contempt case, the fact remains that the parties are in dispute only with respect to the agreed terms of custody qua their child.

2. The respondent, who was available in person today and who is represented through her learned counsel – Smt.Mereena J.Joseph, submitted that she has no objection to the child being with the father as ordered in the judgment, but that her curricular or extracurricular activities cannot be impeded.

3. Smt.Mereena J.Joseph added that the child is a gymnast, having several training commitments and events to attend; and therefore, that, if this Court is to allow the father to be in her custody, it may be clarified that he will ensure that she is able to participate in it without any impediment.

4. Sri.Joseph George – learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, submitted that his client is abroad, but will return to India on 21.12.2025. He prayed that the child be direc