PARVEZ AHMAD KHAN Vs. AREEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against Order dtd. 26/12/2020, passed by Principal District Judge, Srinagar (for short "court below"), disposing of as many as five applications, four filed by petitioner and one by respondent.

(2.) The case set up by appellant is that appellant and respondent married; out of which respondent gave birth to a male child, namely, Ahmad, and that marriage did not continue and he divorced respondent. The minor child was with respondent who did not allow him to see the child, so he filed an application under Sec. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 19/10/2015 with a direction that respondent would produce the ward in District Mediation Centre, Srinagar, and leave custody of the ward of appellant, who would have interaction/interview with the Ward from 1.00 PM to 3.30 PM twice in a month on 1st and 4th Saturday. However, respondent is said to have not adhered to aforesaid directions and continued to commit breach and violation thereof, so he filed contempt petition on 25/4/2016, in which notice was issued to respondent. During pendency thereof, respondent also filed application seeking modification of order dtd. 19/10/2015 on the ground that she had been appointed as Lecturer, making it difficult for her to produce the ward on two Saturdays as both the days were working days and the time fixed for meeting was also creating a lot of trouble in discharging her duties as she had to leave in the middle of working days. This application was disposed of vide order dtd. 8/8/2017, directing production of ward in a month on 1st and 3rd Saturdays for meeting and conveyance charge was to be borne by appellant. It is also contended that appellant also filed an application in aforesaid contempt petition and sought modification of aforesaid two orders dtd. 19/10/2015 and 8/8/2017, by directing respondent to allow appellant full-fledged meeting with minor in and outside the four walls of District Mediation Centre and during interaction of appellant, respondent be directed to stay away from intimate zone and further his grandparents be also allowed to interact with the minor child in the District Mediation Centre. It is also averred that despite orders and directions passed by the court below, respondent continued to flout the same. According to appellant, respondent did not implement the orders of the court below, so he filed second contempt petition, but the court below is stated to have passed order impugned, of which he is aggrieved.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.