Held that a contempt petition is not the appropriate forum to enforce meeting rights granted under the Guardianship and Wards Act as it constitutes a decree executable via civil court. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Contempt Petition No. 340 of 2019
Rahul Shukla ...Petitioner
Vs.
Mona Shukla ...Respondent
Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)
By virtue of the order/judgment passed in Appeal from Order No. 495 of 2017 ‘Rahul Shukla vs. Smt. Mona Shukla’ preferred by the applicant to the contempt petition invoking Section 47 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, where it entailed an adjudication of Section 7 of the Guardianship and Wards Act with regards to grant of the meeting rights of his minor daughter Kriti, who was born on 14.11.2014, the Division Bench of this Court while ceased with the jurisdiction under Section 47, had rendered a judgment in Appeal from Order issuing following directions:
“But this Court simultaneously has to balance the equity, more particularly, when in the instant case, the relationship is not denied, father has been held to be natural guardian as he has certain emotional attachment with his daughter. We feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the number of days of meeting rights by changing hours of meeting is increased, though no rational can balance the said 8 equity. But this Court directs while modifying the impugned judgment dated 15th July, 2017 to the extent that the meeting rights as granted on 2nd and 4th Sunday is extended for 1st Sunday also, i.e. husband will have meeting right on 1st, 2nd and 4th Sunday. Meaning thereby, the appellant would be entitled to meet the daughter on 1st, 2nd and 4th Sunday for five hours starting from 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and thereafter, it would be husband’s liability and responsibility to return back the child to the mother at her residence at the schedule time i.e. 4:00 P.M. Any dereliction in the compliance of the above direction would call for an action both civil and criminal against the appellant.”
2
PM and, thereafter, he owed a responsibility to return the child to the mother at her residence at the scheduled time, i.e. 4:00 PM.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 10.06.2019
3
Pooja
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition is an appropriate forum to enforce meeting rights granted under the Guardianship and Wards Act.
Whether the judgment relating to meeting rights constitutes a decree executable by the contempt jurisdiction.
Whether Section 20 of the Guardianship and Wards Act bars the filing of the contempt petition.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul Shukla
Mona Shukla
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
