contained in paragraph I thereof (executed between the parties on 08.06.2009): "However, the 15" petitioner shall have visiting rights with regard to the chil_d_,'~--cor1.cerned; ._ by prior information and rautuallgv ac'cepta'aol_e_ to each other. Both the petitioners "upn':c1Aer.take.._that' they have the paramount liiriterest with-.regarfd,to,_ welfare of the child is_concerried'."" 4. We have green. oi1--rlllthoughtful'consideration to the sole contentionlllladffariqpéki. arned counsel for the compl'ain;an_t/ possible for us to infer passed by the II Addl. :~Prli; Bangalore, dated 08.05.2009, lnllemorandum of settlement, dated_ 'vO8.()'6.2OOV9: lreleirant part whereof has been 'll"'vextralcted 11-ereinabove] that there has been a denial of yisitateioii._righ1;sj..by the accused--respondent in Violation
of Athe sam_ej,.~ which can tantamount to the commission
contempt, within the meaning of the provisions of the
A erlcontempt of Courts Act, 1971. A perusal of the extract
“of? the memorandum of settlement re–produced
hereinabove reveals, that visitation rights would depend
on mutually acceptable terms. It is not disputed, that
.disrr1iss’e.?,:i._
both the complainant/petitioner as also the
accused/respondent have since remarried [aflierhthey
divorced one another on 08.06.2009].
the complainant/petitioner s,«i»sitatiorr’mr’igi1ts.’_’_jé.oi1 it
29.07.2009, we are of {he tha.,t rrV’i.§i=£het_VV
accused/respondent has to’
exercise her discretionin rights.
and that the comp1ains:.;’t/ have to seek
the consent of before he can
claim the terms of the
memorérndurrr’.of 08.06. 2009.
For reasons hereinabove, We find no
mer1f’:i”n this petition send the same is accordingly hereby
Chéei E ‘&:1″§i€3@
Sd/rs
Iudge
hrp
Index: Y/N