Contempt in temporary child visitation order
bhanudassss
(Querist) 10 September 2014
This query is : Resolved
In DV case by wife,I filed application for temporary custody of my daughter (3 yrs). CJM rejected my request for temporary custody by mentioning in the order "father is at liberty to visit the child since morning to 5.30 pm on day of hearing". Wife brought child on first occassion; child played with me and had good sleep on my lap. Noticing this on advice of lawyer and others wife stopped bringing child in the court. Thereby, I filed many applications in the court requesting smooth visitation and action on wife but court did not take any action. Therefore, I filed separate contempt petition in the same court requesting reference to HC action for disobedience. Court did not even issue notice to opposite party and adjourned the matter many times without any action. So, I wrote application to the Principal District Judge requesting action in this regard. Then CJM dismissed my contempt petition by givin reason in the order that statement "father is at liberty to visit the child since morning to 5.30 pm on day of hearing" does not mean that custodial person (wife) was ordered to bring the child in the court on day of hearing hence there is not disobedience. It only means that father can visit the child if the child is brought in the court on day of hearing and wife may or may not bring the child. CJM has clarified or interepreted this after 3 years and child is now about 7 yrs.
Enlightened with this interepretation many questions arose in my mid which are as below---
Is the interpretation logical and correct?
If the interpretation is correct then, why does the courts make orders which are not binding on custodial parents?
Many courts make orders eg. interim order in my child custody petition, with statement "father is entitled to visit the child ....place ....dates.... time...."
Does it mean that these orders are also not binding on the custodial parents?
Awating reply,
Bhanudasssssssssss
anand
(Expert) 10 September 2014
under DV act, judge does not have power to give you the visitation right of your child as the DV act is full fledgely for the welfare of wife/women and no right has been given to men under this Act of any sort, for visitation/custody a separate application has to filed before the concerned court.
further the interpretation given by the CJM is reasonable one,
bhanudassss
(Querist) 11 September 2014
Dear Expert (Mr.Anand)
Thanks for the response. Please refer following provision in the DV Act 2005 wherein it is clearly mentioned that judge can grant temporary custody of the child and and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent.
"S.21 Custody orders.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent."
It is strange to notice that experts also express views without knowing the things, but many judges also give decisions without knowing fully or overlooking the matter.
I expect answer to my question number 2 and 3 also.
Awaiting reply
Bhanudassssssssss
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 15 September 2014
You cannot get a favorable answer to your question that why the judge interpreted his order that way. No doubt there is no logic in his explanation or interpretation. This is escapism or may be for some other reason. Since your child is over seven years, you can apply for its custody once again afresh now, consult your lawyer and proceed.
bhanudassss
(Querist) 16 September 2014
Dear Expert (Mr. Kalaiselvan)
Thanks for the respose. CJM changes every year. I have already filed the application requesting CJM to order wife to bring child in the court to fulfill visitation order made by the court. Now, I am awaiting for the reaction from the CJM.
As far as interpretation is concerned I also feel that it is not logical, though its partial literal interpretation seens to support CJM because CJM should have looked into intention of the visitation order. Secondly, "in the court premises" these words are also appended to abovesaid visitation order mentioned in the query. Both of these facts clearly brings out meaning that custodial parent is supposed to bring the child in the court for visitation on day of hearing.
I am pleading in person. I will have to find out whether dismissed contempt petition can be reviewed by the same CJM or I will have to file revision/appeal or fresh petition in HC. Let me know your views about it.
Awaiting reply
Bhanudasssssssssss
