M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) PRESENT application has been preferred by the applicant herein original applicant to initiate appropriate civil and criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent for breach and / or defiance the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 308.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.509 of 2012.
(2.) THAT being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad passed in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2011, by which, the respondent husband was allowed to visit the minor son Aditya in custody of the petitioner, applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 509 of 2012 before this Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that a similar prayer was made by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Court, Ahmedabad so far as visiting right of other son of the party Yash is concerned, however the same came to be rejected. It appears that as the dispute was between the parents and they desired to remain in touch with their children and both the parties were asked to settle the dispute amicably. So far as the dispute between the husband and wife is concerned, the matter was referred to mediation centre, however mediation fails and parties failed to resolve their dispute amicably and therefore, the matter was referred back to the Court. It appears that on persuasion of this Court parties agreed to put an end such litigation so far as visiting right of their sons are concerned, consensus was arrived at and with the consent of the parties, the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application came to be disposed of with following directions: "Therefore, this petition deserves to be disposed of with following directions, keeping in mind the welfare and betterment of both minor children; (1) Both the petitioners and respondent No.1 shall fix place of meeting, which may be place of either of the litigants or office of the protection officer or any other place as may be mutually agreed upon by both of them and it shall be conveyed to each other on or before every Saturday and communicated each other about such place. (2) On Sunday petitioner and respondent No.1 shall keep minor children Yash and Aditya present at such mutually agreed place so as to allow them to meet each other between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (3) At such place both the petitioner and respondent No.1 are also permitted to meet both the children, thereby petitioner is permitted to meet Aditya and respondent is permitted to meet Yash on every Sunday as per the above arrangement. 2.1. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that despite above directions and the order passed by the learned Single Judge which was passed with the consensus and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties and as it was not possible to meet on Sunday at the office of the Protection Officer, therefore, the parties were required to be mutually agreed basis, however the respondent is deliberately and willfully not complying with the order / directions issued by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.309 of 2012. In response to the notice issued this Court, Shri Amrish Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. He has denied the allegations made against the respondent. That thereafter, Shri Dipen Dave, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondenthusband. It is the dispute between the husband and wife and more particularly, dispute with respect to the visitation right of the children and to protect the interest of the children, this Court also tried its best to see that the dispute between the parties with respect to visitation right of their children is resolved and in fact the parties were required to meet at the residence of learned advocate for the applicant Shri Hriday Buch and both the parties and their children met. However, thereafter when the parties were required to meet at some other place even in presence of junior advocate, Shri Mankad, however the respondent husband for whatever reasons did not agree. Thereafter, matter was heard by this Court at length.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and even considering the views of the respective parties, as such it is not possible by the parties along with their children to meet at the office of the protection officer on Sunday. It was suggested that the parties at other place like Rajpath Club / Karnavati Club / Sports Club and / or even at some other place even the children will have fresh free atmosphere and they can enjoy there meeting with their parents. An affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent dated 11.4.2014 i.e. after the arguments being concluded. The said affidavit is tendered by Shri Dipen Dave, learned advocate for the respondent. In the aforesaid affidavit date 11.4.2014, the respondent husband has stated that he undertakes that he will remain present with his minor son Yash at every Sunday at Alfaone Mall situated at Vastrapur between 3 p.m to 6 p.m so that minor Yash can meet the applicant. At the time of hearing of matter earlier, applicant desired that they along with their children at Alfaone Mall situated at Vastrapur.;