Dismissed

Sujay v. T.Jansirani

Madras HC24 Aug 2021CONT P/1933/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed for disobeying a Family Court order regarding visitation rights, the High Court discharged the respondent from contempt. However, exercising its writ jurisdiction, the court modified the original decree by deleting the visitation clause and order on maintenance to accommodate the respondent's employment prospects abroad, prioritizing the child's interest.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; original mutual consent decree modified to delete visitation condition and maintenance obligation to allow child to travel abroad with mother freely.

Sujay Vs T.Jansirani — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.No.1933 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶7

Contempt Petition No.1933 of 2019

¶8

Sujay, No.108, Ramanathan Nagar, Koothoapakkam, Cuddalore 607 002 .. Petitioner Vs.

¶9

Jansirani, L&T Eden Park, Phase-I, 302-Mulbery, M.P.Radha Main Road, Siruseri, Kanchipuram District, Chennai 603 103 .. Respondent

¶10

Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

¶11

to punish the respondent for disobeying the order dated 22.02.2017 passed in

¶12

H.M.O.P.No.180 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Villupuram.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.B.Balavijayan

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶17

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respective names.

¶19

1/6

¶20

Cont.P.No.1933 of 2019

¶21

Sujay and Jansirani got married on 09.10.2011 and through the

¶22

wedlock, they are blessed with a male child viz ., Ranish, who was born on 07.08.2012. Both of them are well qualified and are IT professionals. Their marriage ran into rough weather, resulting in the spouses getting estranged. We do not want to go into the reasons for the breakage of their matrimonial life in this contempt petition. Suffice it to say that they filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.180 of 2015 in the Family Court, Villupuram, for divorce by

¶23

mutual consent which was decreed on 22.02.2017 in the following terms :

¶24

“1. ,k;kD mDkjpf;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶25

1 kw;Wk; 2 kDjhuh;fSf;F ,ilapy; fle;j 09.10.2011 md;W eilbgw;w jpUkzk; ,Uthpd; gu!;gu rk;kjj;jpd; (Mutual Consent) mog;gilapy;/ uj;J bra;ag;gl;L tpthfuj;J tH';fp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ..

¶26

kDjhuh;fs; jh';fs; xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;sthW 1k; kDjhuh; FHe;ij uhdP#; guhkhpg;g[ bryt[f;fhf khjk; +.5/000_-Kk;/ nkw;go FHe;ijapd; fy;tp kw;Wk; kUj;Jtk; bryt[fspd; 50Šj;ij bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;/ 1k; kDjhuUf;F FHe;ij uhdPi# thuj;jpy; xU ehs; tpLKiw ehspy; 2 kzp neuk; ghh;g;gjw;F mDkjp mspj;Jk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶27

kD bryt[fis mtuth;fns Vw;Wf;bfhs;s cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.”

¶28

Alleging that Jansirani is not permitting him to visit Ranish, Sujay has filed the present contempt petition against her.

¶29

On notice, Jansirani entered appearance and filed a counter

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affidavit explaining the entire circumstances under which, she was unable to

¶31

2/6

¶32

Cont.P.No.1933 of 2019

¶33

facilitate seamless visitation of Ranish by Sujay. She has stated that Sujay was visiting Ranish till June 2019 and thereafter, as Ranish grew, he was himself unwilling for the visitation by Sujay. She has further stated in paragraph no.9 of her affidavit that Sujay got married to one Madhuravani, D/o.Rathinam of Cuddalore, on 27.08.2017 and through the wedlock, he has a son viz ., S.Anish, who was born on 02.09.2018. It is her contention that Ranish also knows about this and that is exactly the reason, Ranish is unwilling to even meet his father Sujay.

¶34

We called the parties who appeared before us on 10.08.2021 and we had extensive discussions with them in camera . We also spent time with Ranish and we found that he appears to be nurturing a sort of grievance that his father has got married and has got another child through the said marriage. He was unwilling to even spend time with him in our antechamber. May be he was tutored, we do not know.

¶35

Jansirani explained to us the difficulties she is facing on account of the condition relating to visitation in the Family Court order dated 22.02.2017. She stated that she is an M.Tech. graduate and is an IT professional; on account of her skills, she gets several opportunities to go abroad; but, the aforesaid condition in the Family Court order is preventing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her from taking up a meaningful employment abroad. It is her case that she

¶36

3/6

¶37

Cont.P.No.1933 of 2019

¶38

had offers in Australia, Brazil and London, which she was able to take only for specific periods, as she was required to return to India with the child, for complying with the conditions imposed by the Family Court.

¶39

It is her specific grievance that she is unable to give the best education to Ranish abroad, though she has the wherewithal and capacity for it. She also confided in us that her parents looked out for a bridegroom to get her married; during this scouting, a few persons came forward to marry her knowing full well that she is a single mother with a child, but, after seeing the terms of the decree, they backed out by saying that it will be an embarrassment for them, if her erstwhile husband were to come to her new matrimonial home for visiting the child.

¶40

We understand the practical problem faced by single mothers in this orthodox society. Ranish appears to be very intelligent and bright and is keen in pursuing his higher studies abroad. We brought all these aspects to the notice of Sujay, despite which, he was unrelenting with his right to visit Ranish, as ordered by the Family Court.

¶41

Jansirani stated that Sujay has not been complying with the direction of the Family Court to pay maintenance for the last few months, for which Sujay stated that he had stopped paying her, as she was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permitting him to visit Ranish. Jansirani added that she does not want the

¶42

4/6

¶43

Cont.P.No.1933 of 2019

¶44

maintenance that has been awarded by the Family Court, as she is capable of maintaining herself as well her son with the income she earns in her IT profession.

¶45

We carefully considered the various facets of the case. It is trite that action for contempt cannot be taken for every breach of an order. That apart, contempt is a bilateral proceeding between the Court and the alleged contemnor. In the facts and circumstances of the case set out above, we do not find that Jansirani had committed any wilful breach of the order passed by the Family Court.

¶46

Therefore, this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. However, in exercise of our powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the decree dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Family Court, Villupuram in H.M.O.P.No.180 of 2015 by deleting condition no.3 therein and by holding that it is not necessary for Sujay to pay any maintenance to Jansirani and the visitation rights granted to Sujay, stands cancelled. It is open to Jansirani to take Ranish with her, whenever she goes abroad without the consent of Sujay. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid modification is made, bearing in mind, the paramount interest of the child. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ We direct the Family Court, Villupuram, to cause necessary amendment to

¶47

5/6

¶48

Cont.P.No.1933 of 2019

¶49

the decree/order dated 22.02.2017 in H.M.O.P.No.180 of 2015, by deleting

¶50

condition no.3 therein, so that if any certified copy is applied, the Family

¶51

Court would be in a position to supply the amended copy of the decree/ order.

¶52

gya

¶53

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) //Certified to be true copy//

¶54

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶55

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶56

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of

¶57

the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶58

GS/01/10/2021

¶59

To The Judge Family Court Villupuram

¶60

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶61

6/6

Sujay v. T.Jansirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujay v. T.Jansirani

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

M.Navaneetham Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Bhaskar Rao Vs the State Represented

Murugesan Vs the Additional Chief Secretaty to Government

S.Saravanan Vs the State Rep by

C.Joshua Immanuel Vs the Superintendent of Police

Saranya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its