Meenu Sehgal v. Lt Col Manish Sehgal

1. The present contempt petition has been filed on account of the alleged violation ofthe order dated 18.12.2013.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been 2014:DHC:7496 contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Division Benchwhile disposing of the appeal of Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) against the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Family Court granting the custody of the two minor daughters to the mother, Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother) had stated that she will move to Lucknow in a week's time and the custody of the children shall be handed over to her on or before 30.12.2013. Since Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) did not hand over the custody of the children, it resulted in filing of Cont.Case No.26/2014. This court passed an order on 17.01.2014 taking note of the fact that Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal had not handed over the custody of the two minor daughters to Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother) on or before 30.12.2013 and accordingly show cause notice as to why the contempt action may not initiated against Lt.Col Manish Sehgal (father) was issued. The next date fixed in the matter was 03.02.2014. In the meantime, the respondent had also assailed the order dated 18.12.2013 before the apex court which was also a futile exercise. Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) had handed over the custody of both the minor daughters to Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother) on 03.02.2014 itself on account of the dismissal of the /• special leave petition on 30.01.2014. No doubt, there has been some delay in handing over the custody of the two minor daughters by Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) to Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother). That in my view, would not be a groundfor initiatingcontempt actionagainst the father to satisfy the ego ofthe mother ofthe children.

3. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) that reply on his behalf has been filed, however, the same is not on record. The court has been informed that in the reply, it has been stated by Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) that he is apologetic on account of the delay in complying with the court order dated 18.12.2013. The learned counsel for SmtMeenu Sehgal (mother) has contended that the conduct of the Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) has not been good both in the past and also his non compliance with the court order dated 18.12.2013 so far as handing over the custody ofthetwo minor daughters to the Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother) is concerned, therefore, he insists that contempt action be initiated against Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father).

4. The purpose of thecontempt law is notto satisfy personal egos and the whims and fancies of the parties., The purpose of the Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971 is only to ensure that the orders passed by court are complied with and simultaneously the majesty oflaw or the court is not lowered. In the instant case, since the custody of the two minor daughters has been handed over by Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) to Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother) though after expiry ofnearly 33 days from order dated 18.12.2013,[1] feel that such an infraction on the part ofthe Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) is not ofsuch a nature as to be construed as disobedience which is contumacious, wilfiil or deliberate to invite any precipitative order to be passed against Lt.CoLManish Sehgal (father) under the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971. I feel that both the contempt petitions lack merit and therefore the same are dismissed. The contempt notice is discharged. However, while discharging Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father), he has been warned to be carefiil in the fiiture as regard to timely compliance ofthe orders ofthe court which shall be done both in letter and spirit.

5. With the consent of the parties, it has been agreed that Lt.Col.Manish Sehgal (father) would take the children for a couple of hours tomorrow i.e.14.08.2014 at 4 P.M. for an outing and hand over the custody ofthe children back to Smt.Meenu Sehgal (mother) in the evening after about two hours.

6. List for fiirther directions on 20.08.2014.

7. A copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. V.K. SHALI, J