- (1.) This order will dispose of two contempt petitions COCP 1108 of 1991 and COCP 64 of 1993 filed by the wife for punishing her husband for contempt of Court for deliberately not obeying the orders passed by this Court whereby the respondent was directed to leave the minor child with the petitioner over the week ends.
(2.) On a petition filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, 'the Act'), the respondent-father of the minor child was allowed to retain the temporary custody of the child during the pendency of the petition under Section 7 of the Act filed by the petitioner-mother. This order was impugned in Civil Revision 1860 of 1991 and the same was modified on August 29, 1991 and the following directions were issued : "Having regard to the circumstances of the case and deepest consideration for the welfare of the child keeping in view his emotions, I modify the order of the Guardian Judge to the extent that it will be the duty of the father-respondent to leave the child with the mother within two hours after school hours on every Saturday and the child would spend the night with the mother. The mother, in turn, will drop the child back on Sunday evening at the house of the father-respondent by 5 P.M. When Saturday is a holiday, the father will drop the child within two hours after the school hours on Friday and the child will be dropped back by the mother on Sunday. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly." As is clear from the order, the aforesaid directions were issued primarily in view of the emotions expressed by the child and also in the hope that the parties might come closer to each and sink their differences for the sake of the child. Unfortunately, this has not happened. At the time of passing of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before me in person and efforts to bring about a settlement between them turned out to be an exercise in futility.
(3.) It is alleged that the child was coming to the petitioner on time but later the respondent started whittling down the order by sending the minor child late and sometimes the child would be sent on Sunday mornings and that some of the week ends were even skipped and the child was not sent to the mother. It is further alleged that sometimes a message was sent stating that the child was busy studying for the exams scheduled for the following Monday and thereafter the child was never sent to meet the mother after October, 1991. The respondent then moved civil miscellaneous 8928-A/C-11 of 1991 for the modification of the order dated August 29, 1991 on the ground that the child was not willing to meet the mother. I then sent for the child and having regard to his emotions the application was dismissed. The petitioner is stated to have sent a telegram requesting the husband to comply with the directions issued by this Court but since the husband was adamant in not sending the child to her over the week ends, COCP No. 1108 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent again started sending the child though sometimes late and some of the week ends were again skipped. Again, when the child stopped coming to the mother over the week ends as directed by this Court, the petitioner filed another contempt petition (COCP 64 of 1993) for taking action against the husband under the Contempt of Courts Act.;