LexDR. ASHISH RANJAN versus DR. ANUPAMA TANDON AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 961 DR. ASHISH RANJAN v. DR. ANUPAMA TANDON AND ANR. (Contempt Petition (Civil)· No.394 of 2009) NOVEMBER 30, 2010 (P. SATHASIVAM ANO DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Child and Family Welfare: A 8 Compromise order as regards the custody of the child - c Violation of - Respondent-mother agreed to visitation by applicant-father and his parents to see the child - Contempt petition by applicant against respondents that the terms and conditions of the compromise order as regards the visitation rights were not complied with - Held: The compromise order D as regards the custody of the child proved unworkable as the respondents had succeeded in frustrating the same totally - The child had been tutored by the respondents to the extent that he had no inclination towards the applicant father - The respondents ensured that all efforts of the applicant or his parents to meet the child turned futile - The respondents deliberately· and willingly violated the terms of the compromise order - In such a fact-situation, they are guilty E of committing the contempt of court - However, imposing any punishment on the respondents would not serve any purpose, nor it would serve in a better way to the welfare of the child - The issue raised being a pure question of fact require examination by an appropriate forum taking into consideration· all the factual and legal aspects - Liberty given F to the applicant to approach the appropriate court/forum for seeking custody of the child or any other appropriate relief in G . this regard - Contempt of Court - Undertaking - Judgment/ order - Compromise order. Custody of child - Paramount consideration - Welfare 961 H 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A of the child - Held: The provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, however, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction in such cases - Statutory provisions dealing with B the custody of the child under any personal law cannot and must not supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor - Mutual settlement reached between the parties cannot come in the way of well established principles in respect of the custody of the child - c Jurisdiction - Parens patriae jurisdiction. Custody of child - Inapplicability of doctrine of res judicata - Held: If welfare of the child is not taken care of by the custodial parent, subsequent application by non-custodial parent for custody of a minor cannot be thrown out at the D threshold as not maintainable - Doctrine of res-judicata is not applicable in matters of child custody being a recurring cause - Doctrine of res-judicata. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142 - Held: A party E cannot be rendered remediless - Mere technicality cannot prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent powers - The power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be exercised by Supreme Court to do complete justice between the parties, wherever it is just and equitable to do so F and. must be exercised to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice - Equity - Remedy. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Violation of undertaking - Held: The powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, in addition to the statutory provisions of the G Contempt of Court Act, 1971 are always available to Supreme Court to see that the order or undertaking which is violated by the contemnor is effectuated and the court has all powers to enforce the consent order passed by it and a/so issue further directions/orders to do complete justice between the H DR. ASHISH RANJAN v. DR. ANUPAMA TANDON 963 AND ANR. parties - -Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 129, 142 - A Undertaking - Judgment/order - Compromise order. B In Lok Adalat proceedings, the matrimonial dispute between the parties was resolved and a compromise order was passed. The issue relating to the custody of the minor child born out of the wedlock was also· resolved therein. The first respondent (mother of the child) had agreed to visitation by the applicant-father and his parents to see the child. The applicant-father filed the instant contempt petition on the ground that the first C respondent did not obey the terms of the compromise order as regards the custody and the visitation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.