Full Text
Translation output
~--'--
\
-~
'~'
A-16
% 12.8.2011
Present: Mr.Vinod Tyagi and Mr. Sidhrath Tyagi with petitioner in person.
Mr.Harsh K.Sharma, Advocate with respondent in person.
+CONT. CAS (C) No.552/2011 & CM No.13825/2011
*
Respondent has put in appearance; she is present in person.
Petitioner has pointed out that in terms of the directions of this court dated 15.7.2011; he could not meet his child on 16.7.2011, 23.7.2011 and on 30.7.2011 as hindrance had been created by the respondent; the respondent who is present states that the order of this court dated 15.7.2011 could be obtained only on 29.7.2011 that is why the order could be complied with and the father could not take custody of the child on the Saturdays falling on 16.7.2011, 23.7.2011. Further contention is that that on 22.7.2011 the child was suffering from gastroenteritis; even otherwise 30.7.2011 was a
5th Saturday; this is also a bone of contention between the parties; it is clarified that father is permitted to take interim custody of the child in terms of the order dated 15.7.2011 on all Saturdays except second Saturday. It is not in dispute that the father has met the
( child in terms of the directions of this Court on 06.8.2011. Learned
\ '
''--" counsel for the respondent undertakes that the directions of this
Court shall now be fully complied with. disposed of in the above terms.
AUGUST 12, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
)_.--., 2011:DHC:8468
\
-~
'~'
A-16
% 12.8.2011
Present: Mr.Vinod Tyagi and Mr. Sidhrath Tyagi with petitioner in person.
Mr.Harsh K.Sharma, Advocate with respondent in person.
+CONT. CAS (C) No.552/2011 & CM No.13825/2011
*
Respondent has put in appearance; she is present in person.
Petitioner has pointed out that in terms of the directions of this court dated 15.7.2011; he could not meet his child on 16.7.2011, 23.7.2011 and on 30.7.2011 as hindrance had been created by the respondent; the respondent who is present states that the order of this court dated 15.7.2011 could be obtained only on 29.7.2011 that is why the order could be complied with and the father could not take custody of the child on the Saturdays falling on 16.7.2011, 23.7.2011. Further contention is that that on 22.7.2011 the child was suffering from gastroenteritis; even otherwise 30.7.2011 was a
5th Saturday; this is also a bone of contention between the parties; it is clarified that father is permitted to take interim custody of the child in terms of the order dated 15.7.2011 on all Saturdays except second Saturday. It is not in dispute that the father has met the
( child in terms of the directions of this Court on 06.8.2011. Learned
\ '
''--" counsel for the respondent undertakes that the directions of this
Court shall now be fully complied with. disposed of in the above terms.
AUGUST 12, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
)_.--., 2011:DHC:8468
JUDGMENT