Disposed

Somnath Das v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2017Cont.(Crl)/1/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a contempt petition after the petitioner demonstrated compliance with visitation orders by taking his daughter to Bengaluru. The court dropped proceedings, assured future visitation rights, and directed that police assistance should not be routinely required unless hindered by the mother.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding dropped; petitioners visitation rights confirmed for future months and summer vacations without routine police assistance.

Somnath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. (Criminal) Case No. 1 of 2017

¶2

Somnath Das ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sheoli Hati .…. … Opposite Parties -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N. PATHAK -----For the Petitioner : M/s Vinod Kanth, Sr. Advocate Vandana Singh, & Girish Mohan Singh, Advs. For the State : JC to Sr. S.C.-I For the Opp. Party No.2 : M/s Saimendra Roy Choudhary, Tapas Kabiraj, Amit Kumar & Aninda Bhattacharya, Advs. --------

¶3

7/ 17.04.2017 Pursuant to order dated 20.02.2017 passed by this Court, we are informed that the petitioner had been able to take his daughter to Bengaluru on 23.02.2017 and returned her back to her mother on 04.03.2017. It is, however, submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to take the help of the police for exercise his visiting rights, which was provided as per the order dated 20.02.2017, otherwise, he would not have been able to take his daughter to Bengaluru.

¶4

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has been able to exercise his visitation rights with his daughter. There are allegations and counter allegations by both the parties, but in the interest of the relationship between the parties and for the interest of future of the child, we are not entering into those allegations and counter allegations.

¶5

Now that pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2017, the visiting right has been exercised by the petitioner and he had been able to take his daughter to Bangaluru to enjoy the part of the vacations, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping this contempt application pending.

¶6

We are assured by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, Smt. Sheoli Hati, that in future also, the petitioner shall be allowed to exercise his visiting rights, as has been allowed to him by the Family Court below and during the ensuing summer vacations also, the petitioner shall be allowed to take his daughter Aditi Bishakha Das to Bengaluru during the first half of the vacation.

¶7

-2-

¶8

We are also informed that pursuant to order dated 20.02.2017, the child, Aditi Bishakha Das, has since been admitted in the Sacred Heart School, Jamshedpur, and her summer vacations shall be from 07.05.2017 to 12.6.2017. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, upon the instructions from his client, Smt. Sheoli Hati, who is present in the Court, has assured us that the petitionerfather can take the daughter Aditi Bishakha Das to Bengaluru along with him during the first half of this vacation from 08.05.2017 to 24.05.2017, and he shall be entitled to exercise the similar visiting rights during other vacations also.

¶9

In view of the assurance given to us, we hereby drop this contempt proceeding and make it clear that the visiting rights granted to the petitioner by the Family Court below shall continue, both regarding the monthly visits of the petitioner to his daughter, and the visits of the daughter to her father's place at Bengaluru, during the vacations.

¶10

We make it clear that as far as practicable, the petitioner-father while taking his daughter to Bengaluru shall not take the help of the police etc., but in case, there is any hindrance by the opposite party No.2 Sheoli Hati, the directions given in the order dated 20.02.2017 shall be carried on.

¶11

We accordingly drop this contempt proceeding, making the order dated 20.02.2017 passed in this case, a part of this order to be followed in future.

¶12

This contempt case is accordingly, disposed of with the directions as above.

¶13

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶14

R.Kr.

Somnath Das v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somnath Das v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors. Vs Smt Anita Kumari Sinha

Ms Jardine Henderson Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Rakesh Macwan Vs Binod Kumar Mishra and Ors.

Nav Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Jalan Vs Smt Shital Devi Jalan

Nitish Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Railway and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Bhagat Vs Kamal Manjari