In custody disputes, the welfare of the child is paramount, and involvement in court orders should be interpreted considering the circumstances, not merely rule adherence.

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH,J.

Through final orders passed in H.C.P.No.2455 of 2023 dated

11.03.2024, touching upon the custody of the minor child of the petitioner/father and the respondent/mother, we had directed the parties to approach the concerned Family Court, seeking to resolve their matrimonial dispute, as well as the guardianship of their minor child. However, we have made certain arrangements with regard to the petitioner's visitation right over the minor child in the following manner:-

..... “4. Since we have also intervened through interim orders with regard to the petitioner's visit of the child, to which, both the parties have expressed certain inconvenience for arrangement, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is granted liberty to have the interim custody of the child on every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5p.m till any interim or final orders are passed by the concerned family court with regard to the visitation rights. We hasten to add here that, without reference to the present arrangement, the Family Court would be at liberty to pass such orders, modifying the visitation conditions, in case any of the parties express their inconvenience with the present arrangement.”....

2. The present Contempt Petition has been filed with the allegations that the respondent/mother had disobeyed the aforesaid arrangement, as extracted above and forcefully took the child from the school on 06.04.2024 and has not returned the child. Pending the Contempt Petition, we had called upon the parties to explore the possibility of settlement and on their acceptance, we referred them to mediation through an interim order passed on 05.07.2024 which reads as follows:-

“Today when the matter was taken up in our Chambers, we had interacted with the petitioner, the respondent, as well as the minor child and have advised them to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement by taking into account the welfare of the child.

2. Both the parties are called upon to be present before us on 11.07.2024 at 4.45 PM in the Chambers. The parents of the petitioner, as well as the brother of the respondent shall also be present before this Court on the next hearing date.

3. Though we are of the prima facie view that our earlier order dated 11.03.2024 passed in HCP.No.2455 of

2023 has been disobeyed, we shall take a final call in this aspect at a later stage. However, by taking into account the fact that the child is admittedly been in the custody of the respondent/mother for the past 2 months, the same shall be continued till the next hearing. In the meantime, the petitioner/father is at liberty to have the interim custody of the child on Saturday i.e. on 06.07.2024 from 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and visitation rights on any other days, either at the respondent's house or at his child's school premises. It is made clear that the respondent's family members shall not create any sort of obstruction when the petitioner visits his child, as aforesaid.

4. Call on 11.07.2024.”

3. After mediation, there appears to be some progress with regard to the estranged relationship of the couple and hence, the following order came to be passed on 11.07.2024:-

“Today when the matter was taken up in our Chambers, we had interacted with the petitioner, the respondent, as well as their minor daughter. After counseling them, both the husband/petitioner and the wife/respondent agreed to live together, along with their daughter, peacefully in a cordial relationship.

2. Further, we had also interacted with the parents of the petitioner/ husband, who had expressed that they have no objection on their son living with his wife and daughter. The petitioner/husband also stated that he need a couple of days to make arrangements of their matrimonial house.

3. Hence, call the matter on 18.07.2024. Till such time, both the paternal, as well as maternal grandparents, are at liberty to visit their grand-

daughter.”

4. In continuation of the aforesaid order, we had felt that further mediation may be required in