RUHI JOSHI Vs. SONU @ DHARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act on 10.1.2006 against her husband for obtaining custody of her minor son, namely, Love, from him. Alongwith the petition, she also filed an application for grant of interim custody of the child. The said application was accepted by the Guardian Judge, Ludhiana on 20.11.2006 and the respondent was directed to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner within one month. The respondent challenged the aforementioned order by filing the appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana on 23.7.2007. Still not satisfied, the respondent filed Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2007 in this Court but the same was also dismissed on 26.5.2008. He was directed to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the aforementioned order was passed in the presence of counsel for the respondent. Even after a lapse of a period of one week from the passing of the aforementioned order, the respondent did not comply with the directions requiring him to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner. Accordingly, she filed the present petition under Sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The same came up for hearing on August 01, 2008, when notice of motion was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him. On 23.10.2008, at the time of further hearing, the respondent was represented by his counsel. Reply on behalf of the respondent was filed on 18.11.2008. As the direction given by the Court in handing over custody of the minor child had not been complied with by the respondent, he was directed to appear in person. Learned counsel for the respondent undertook to cause the appearance of the respondent along with the child. On the next date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent appeared in the morning when the case was called and informed the Court that the respondent has told him that he would be reaching to appear on that day. The case was called three times and every time learned counsel informed the Court that the respondent was reaching the Court. The case was called for the fourth time in the post-lunch session, when learned counsel for the respondent expressed inability to cause the appearance of the respondent. Under these circumstances, the Court summoned the respondent through bailable warrants for 4.12.2008 and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana was directed to ensure the execution of the warrants. The respondent was further directed to appear along with the child. On 4.12.2008, bailable warrants were received back served with the report that the respondent was not available and his house was locked for the last 6/7 months. Accordingly, fresh warrants were issued and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana directed to ensure the execution of the warrants. The petitioner was also given liberty to associate himself with the police for execution of the warrants. The matter was, thereafter, taken up for hearing yesterday, when learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that due to communication gap, respondent could not be informed about bringing the child with him in the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent assured the Court that the respondent would bring the child before the Court today. The hearing was, accordingly, adjourned for today and the respondent was directed to be present in person along with the child.

(3.) IN the reply already submitted by the respondent, he had denied that he had ever been approached by the petitioner. According to him, in fact, no one came to him for taking the custody of the child and he himself never wanted to go to the house of the petitioner for the sake of his safety.