Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010189252025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/493/2025 MANZIL HUSSAIN S/O ISSAHAR ALI, R/O FLAT NO. 5N, BLOCK 1, SHINE HEAVEN APARTMENTS, BAGHORBARI SATGAON LINK ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781171 VERSUS SAMIMA ABDUR ATIQ W/O MANZIL HUSSAIN, R/O HOUSE NO. 9, SUNCITY LANE, AMBARI, SATGAON, P.O.-UDAYAN VIHAR, P.S.- SATGAON, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN THE OFFICIAL QUARTER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, JORHAT UNIT, P.O.- JORHAT, P.S.- JORHAT (SADAR), DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : P BURAGOHAIN, MR M BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS F INTAZ,MR. W A SHEIKH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27.03.2026 [1] Heard Mr. M. Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 2/9 contemnor/respondent. [2] This Contempt Case has been registered on filing of an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 as well as Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977) alleging wilful & deliberate violation, by the contemnor, of the order dated 07.09.2024, passed in Misc (G) Case No. 153/ 2022, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. [3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner and the contemnor are married to each other as per Islamic rites and customs on 28.01.2018. A male child, namely Natiq Hussain, was born out of the said wedlock, on 16.06.2019. Presently he is aged about 7 years. [4] At the time of his marriage, the petitioner was working at Odisha and the respondent/contemnor was staying with her parents in Guwahati. However, since the mid-April 2019, the petitioner and respondent started residing in a rented house at Bagharbari, Satgaon Road, Panjabari, Guwahati, which was about 500 meters away from the maternal home of the respondent. Thereafter, matrimonial discord started erupting between both the parties and ultimately since 1st of January 2020, the respondent left the company of the petitioner, along with her baby and started residing in her maternal home again. Page No.# 3/9 [5] Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, a number of cases are pending between them. The contemnor/respondent was a Homeopathy Doctor in Satgaon, where she was having private practice. However, she got appointed as superintendent of taxes under the Finance Department of the Government of Assam and as the minor son is in the custody of the respondent, the petitioner claiming himself to be the natural guardian of the minor son filed a guardianship case under Sections 7, 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati seeking guardianship, custody and visitation right with regard to the minor son Sri Natiq Hussain. Said guardianship case was registered as Misc (G) Case No. 153/ 2022. [6] During pendency of the aforesaid Misc (G) Case, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking visitation rights to meet his son. By order dated 07.09.2024, passed in the Misc (G) Case No. 153/ 2022, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati allowed the said petition and directed the respondent/contemnor to produce her son in second half of every second and fourth Sunday of the month in the Garmur Police Outpost under Jorhat Police Station. It was directed that the petitioner may meet his son at Garmur Police Outpost, when he is brought there by the respondent/contemnor. [7] The present Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner, alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the aforesaid order, Page No.# 4/9 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup(M), by the contemnor. The petitioner has alleged that respondent/contemnor has violated the aforesaid order by not producing the child, in terms of the aforesaid order for meeting the petitioner, and, it is also alleged that whenever, the child was produced, the petitioner used to place unreasonable restrictions, thereby, defeating the purpose of the visitation right. [8] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.05.2025, when the petitioner went to Garmur Police Out Post to meet his son, the respondent did not bring the son there for meeting the petitioner, rather he was informed by the counsel of the respondent that she was unable to bring the child for visitation due to her official engagements in Guwahati. The petitioner believing the same to be true did not raise any objection. [9] The counsel for the petitioner further submits that, thereafter, on 26.07.2025, also, the respondent did not bring the child for visitation and he was informed by the engaged counsel for the respondent that the child will not be present for visitation until his mental health condition improves. [10] He further submits that thereafter on 10.08.2025, also, when the petitioner attended for the scheduled visitation and Garmur Police Out Post, the respondent failed to appear along with the minor son. However, an individual claiming himself to be the member of Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Jorhat was present at the venue for a purported enquiry without any direction to that Page No.# 5/9 regard from the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1. [11] It is also alleged that during the first visitation on 22.09.2024, the respondent directed some police personnel for video recording of the meeting between the petitioner and his son without any authority and without the consent of the petitioner. [12] He further submits that on 13.07.2025, the younger cousin of the petitioner brought cake and balloons to this venue of visitation, as it was child's birthday. However, the respondent took this as a plea for obstructing the visitation right of the petitioner. [13] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has also filed an application before the Family Court for modifying the order dated 07.09.2024, as no fixed time of visitation is mentioned in the said order. However, no order has yet been passed by the Family Court on his application. He submits that without any alteration or modification of the order dated 07.09.2024, the respondent cannot, unilaterally, refuse to bring the child for visitation on one or other pretext, and, same has amounted to contempt of the deliberate contempt of the order of the Family Court. [14] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent/contemnor is guilty of wilful contempt of the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Guwahati, she is liable to be punished in accordance with law. He further submits that the respondent may also be directed to strictly comply with the visitation Page No.# 6/9 order dated 07.09.2024. [15] On the other hand, Mr. M. A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor has submitted that there is no wilful or deliberate violation of the Family Court's order dated 07.09.2024, by the respondent. He submits that during visitation hours, whenever the child is brought for visitation to meet his father, he is always scared and upset by meeting his father. He submits that the respondent was unable to bring the child to meet his father, as he was not willing to meet his father and he cannot be forcefully brought to meet his father against his will. Same has caused mental trauma to the child. He submits that, accordingly, on 23.07.2025, the respondent had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 for modification of order dated 07.09.2024, and for grant of interim stay of the aforesaid order, considering the mental condition of the child. He, however, submits that aforesaid petition is still pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 and no order has been passed on the said application. [16] The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that prior to the aforesaid application dated 23.07.2025, the respondent had also filed another application before the learned Principal Judge Family Court No. 1 on 25.11.2024 bringing to the notice of the court that during visitation period, the son of the respondent is always scared to meet his father and same has caused mental trauma to him. However, no order has been passed on the application dated Page No.# 7/9 25.11.2024 filed by the respondent yet. [17] The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that thereafter, by order dated 22.09.2025, passed in the CRP(I/O) No. 411/2025, the further proceeding of the Misc. (G) Case No. 153/ 2022, pending before the Court of Principal Judge Family Court was stayed and the application filed by the present respondent are still pending before the Family Court without being considered. [18] The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the child could not be produced for visitation on a few occasions as he was not well and was reluctant to meet his father and there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the court's order by the respondent. Hence, he submits that this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. [19] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. [20] The main allegation against the contemnor/respondent is that she had failed to bring the minor son of the petitioner/respondent for visitation as directed by the Family Court, whereas, the contention of the contemnor/respondent is that the child is suffering from mental trauma and is reluctant to meet his father, therefore, she could not forcefully bring the child to meet his father. [21] It also appears that the fact that the child was suffering from mental trauma was communicated to the petitioner by the engaged Page No.# 8/9 counsel of the respondent. However, it also appears that no modification of the order dated 07.09.2024, was made by the Family Court. It also appears that the fact that the child is reluctant to meet his father and that he is suffering from mental trauma was also brought to the notice of the Family Court by filing two petitions by the respondent/contemnor on 25.11.2024 and 23.07.2025. However, no orders have been passed on the said petitions by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M). One of the reasons for which perhaps, the Family Court did not pass any orders on the aforesaid petitions filed by the contemnor was that the further proceeding of Misc. (G) Case No. 153/2022 was stayed by this court, by its order dated 22.09.2025, in CRP (I/O) No. 411/2025. Hence, the contentions raised by the contemnor/respondent that her minor son is suffering from mental trauma could not be examined either by the Family Court or any other authority. [22] There is no dispute regarding the proposition that in custody matters of minor children, the paramount interest is the welfare of children and that is to be taken into account for making any decision. The same approach is also to be adopted while considering this contempt petition. Though, the order dated 07.09.2024 passed in Misc. (G) Case No. 153/ 2022, has been impugned in the CRP (I/O) No. 411/2025 and the validity of the said order is to be considered in the said, however, this court is of the opinion that prima facie the aforesaid order dated 07.09.2024, appears to be defective on at least one count that it had directed the respondent to bring her son to a Police Outpost. The venue of the visitation Page No.# 9/9 does not appear to be appropriate considering the age of the child. However, since the matter is under consideration of this court in CRP (I/O) No. 411/2025, it shall be dealt with in the said case. [23] Though, the respondent/contemnor has failed to bring her child to the Garmur Police Out Post as directed by the Family Court, however, considering the plea taken by the contemnor regarding reluctance and mental trauma faced by the child, which is yet to be tested, this court is of the opinion that for the paramount interest of the welfare of the child in question, this is not a fit case where the contempt jurisdiction of this court may be exercised to punish the mother for failing to produce him in the Police Outpost in spite of his reluctance. More so, when the child is presently in custody of his mother, hence, any punishment of imprisonment to the mother would have an adverse impact on the child. [24] In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, what is required is an expeditious disposal of CRP (I/O) No. 411/2025, and not to pursue the Contempt Case in the interest of the child. [25] Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant