Disposed¶81

Dr.Sabarinath Radhakrishnan v. Meenakshi Sougoumar

Madras HC10 Nov 2025CONT P/2514/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Cont.P.No.2514 of 2025, Madras HC, decided 10.11.2025) alleging wilful disobedience of the visitation order dated 06.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.2352 of 2024; petitioner-father travelled from the UK on multiple dates (18.11.2024–22.06.2025) for 1st/3rd-Saturday visitation at Family Court, Puducherry; interim orders (26.09.2025, 17.10.2025) mandated supervised visitation, CCTV recording and a timed handover on 18.10.2025; Family Court report: child brought but reluctant, emotional issues, no force permissible, counselling left to Family Court; held: no contempt committed; petition closed.

What did the court decide?

None; no punishment imposed — the Court found no contempt committed as alleged and the Contempt Petition stands closed. ¶81

Dr.Sabarinath Radhakrishnan Vs Meenakshi Sougoumar — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no punishment imposed — the Court found no contempt committed as alleged and the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent committed contempt by wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.2352 of 2024, by failing to appear before the Family Court, Puducherry / failing to bring the daughter / not allowing the petitioner interaction with her on the mandated 1st and 3rd Saturdays despite the petitioner travelling from the United Kingdom.

¶26

Court's answer

Interim direction (listing of 17.10.2025): the respondent/wife was ordered to bring the child to the Family Court, Puducherry on 18.10.2025 and leave the child in the custody of her father from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., with a responsible Court Staff deputed to oversee, the visitation to be CCTV-recorded, and the Family Judge's report to reach this Court on or before 26.10.2025.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

In view of the report received from the Family Court, Puducherry, this Court finds that no contempt was committed as alleged by the petitioner, and accordingly the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶81

Key takeaways

From the Family Court's report it was seen that the child was brought by the respondent and the petitioner was present, but the child shows some reluctance and emotional issues are involved which cannot be meddled with and no force can be exerted against the child; passage of time and sustained counselling might bring behavioural changes, a matter expressly left for the Family Court to decide.obiter¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), Cont.P.No.2514 of 2025, decided 10.11.2025 — Contempt — visitation rights. Filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging wilful disobedience by the respondent-mother of the order dated 06.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.2352 of 2024, which had allowed the petitioner-father's Revision, set aside the order dated 18.05.2023 in I.A.No.1334 of 2022 in G.O.P.No.22 of 2019 (Family Court, Puducherry), and maintained visitation rights (1st and 3rd Saturday monthly) as per the order dated 30.09.2021 in I.A.No.702 of 2019. The petitioner, residing and employed in the United Kingdom, listed nine India visits between 18.11.2024 and 22.06.2025 and produced an attendance/adjudication record from 06.10.2021 to 21.06.2025 alleging the respondent failed to appear or allow interaction; his pre-contempt notice was received on 21.06.2025 without reply. Interim listings (26.09.2025 and 17.10.2025) directed supervised visitation within the respondent's sight with CCTV recording, and a specific handover of the child on 18.10.2025 from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., with the Family Judge's report due by 26.10.2025. The Family Judge reported that the child was brought and the petitioner present, but the child showed reluctance and emotional issues, on which no force could be exerted; passage of time and sustained counselling might bring behavioural changes, left to the Family Court. On that report the Court found no contempt committed as alleged and closed the Contempt Petition.

¶1

Cont.P.No.2514 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Cont.P.No.2514 of 2025

¶7

Dr.Sabarinath Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Meenakshi Sougoumar ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein for her wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.2352 of 2024.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier

¶13

proceedings made in the previous listings on 26.09.2025 and 17.10.2025, which read as follows:

¶14

Page No.1 of 15

*S.No.*	*Arrival*	*Departure*	*Duration of Stay*
1	18.11.2024	25.12.2024	1 Month – 7 days
2	29.01.2025	05.02.2025	7 days
3	13.02.2025	18.02.2025	5 days
4	27.02.2025	04.03.2025	7 days
5	12.03.2025	18.03.2025	5 days
6	29.03.2025	05.05.2025	1 Month and 1 Week
7	17.05.2025	26.05.2025	10 days
8	05.06.2025	10.06.2025	5 days
9	19.06.2025	22.06.2025	4 days

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

M.S.Durairaj, 66 Years Vs M.Ravikumar

M.Lakshmikanthan Vs The State Rep by

Vasantha Vs The State Rep. By

R.Prabhakaran, M/41 Vs M.Balamurugan, M/36

Perumal Vs Prema

Prema Gnanaprakasam Vs The Inspector of Police