Disposed¶27

S.Karthick, v. S.Vijayalakshmi

Madras HC27 Mar 2026CONT P/2072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, K. Kumaresh Babu J., Cont.P.No.2072 of 2025 (decided 27-03-2026): contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging disobedience of a visitation order concerning a minor child; petition dismissed/closed because the order alleged to have been violated had been modified on 31.07.2025; principle that no contempt action lies for violation of an order that has since been modified; liberty reserved to seek modification of the modified order; parties S. Karthick v. S. Vijayalakshmi; visitation rights, grandparents, Family Court, learned Master, GWOP proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; petitioner at liberty to move the Court for modification of the order dated 31.07.2025. ¶27

S.Karthick, Vs S.Vijayalakshmi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont.P.No.2072 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

Cont.P.No.2072 of 2025

¶7

S.Karthick ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Vijayalakshmi ...Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for disobeying the order of A.No.131 of 2025 in GWOP.No.669 of 2024 passed by this Court dated 19.03.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sairam For Respondent : Mrs.Viajaylakshmi Mr.K.Rajarathnam

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Contempt Petition had been filed alleging violation of orders of this Court dated 19.03.2025. Originally by order dated 20.02.2025 this Court had granted visitation rights on the first and third Saturday of every month between 10.00 am to 12.00 pm.

¶14

__________ Page1 of 4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Cont.P.No.2072 of 2025

¶17

The matter was again taken up for hearing on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner indicating that the child is only brought at 11.30 a.m., and that the respondent had been interfering in the visitation. To resolve the issue, this Court had directed the respondent, who is the grandmother of the child to bring the child at 10.00 a.m., to the Child Care Center attached to the Family Court and leave the child with the applicant father and collect the child at 12.00 p.m.

¶18

It is to be noted that by order dated 31.07.2025, the said order was modified directing the respondent who is the maternal grandmother to bring the child during hearing before the learned Master for which dates have been fixed and permit the applicant father to be with the child for one hour on each day without any interruption. It is informed that such visitation had been complied with and during the last of the hearing the learned Master had referred the matter back to the Court in view of certain issues that has been raised in leading the evidence.

¶19

Hence, it was reported by the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the order of modification, the earlier order got merged and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to complain of violation of the order that was made prior to the order of modification. However, the learned counsel for the

¶20

Page2 of 4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Cont.P.No.2072 of 2025

¶23

petitioner would submit that he had not been permitted to see the child as per

¶24

Court specific order after the matter was referred back to the Court.

¶25

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent the order, violation of which is complained of, stood modified by this Court in its order dated 31.07.2025. It is unfortunate that the evidence on the fixed dates could not be completed in view of issues that had been raised before the learned Master who had recorded the evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no action can be taken for violation of the orders which had

¶26

been modified.

¶27