Sl. No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Cont.Cas(C) J2 No.1 of 2026 Ranjan Yumnam, aged about 45 years S/o Yumnam Pishak Singh, resident of Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.- Porompat, District- Imphal East, Manipur represented by his mother namely Yumnam Ibemhal Devi aged about 75 years, W/o late Yumnam Pishak Singh, resident of Ningthem Purkhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S. – Porompat, District- Imphal East, Manipur. Petitioner Vs. Nejolata Haobijam, aged about 44 years, W/o Ranjan Yumnam, resident of Ningthem Pukhri Mapal, PO & PS –Porompat, District- Imphal East. Present Address : Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, NEIGRIHMS CAMPUS, SHILLONG, Meghalaya 793018 Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate Date of Order : 29.04.2026. (ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 29.04.2026 [1] Captioned contempt case has been filed alleging violation of ‘order dated 04.09.2025 made in Mat. App. No.8 of 2025 with JOHN TELEN KOM Digitally signed by JOHN TELEN KOM Date: 2026.04.30 13:31:12 +05'30' M.C.(Mat.App.)No.12 of 2025’ (‘said order’ for the sake of convenience and clarity). [2] Short facts are that contempt petitioner is sole petitioner and his wife is lone respondent; that there is a matrimonial discord resulting in husband filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955); that this suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by husband is Mat. (R & C) Suit No.7 of 2024 on the file of Family Court Imphal East at Lamphelpat; that pending suit, in an interlocutory application, the Family Court made an order dated 02.07.2025 pertaining to visitation rights of two children; that it is to be noted that from the wedlock, there are two children, one son and one daughter (both minors) and they are now with wife; that this 02.07.2025 order made by the Family Court was carried in appeal to this Court vide afore-referred Mat. App. No.8 of 2025 with M.C. (Mat. App. No.8 of 2025 with M.C. (Mat. App.) No.12 of 2025, matter was referred to Mediation, the parties arrived at a amicable settlement and inter-alia agreed that the husband would made a Video Conferencing (VC) call to wife every Sunday at 4:30 pm IST (to be noted, husband is now stationed in Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan and IST denotes Indian Standard Time) and would speak with his wife and two children, for ten minutes with his wife and for five minutes each with his two children; that recording the amicable settlement as undertaking given to the Court, this Court disposed of the appeal and miscellaneous case thereat in and vide order said order i.e., afore-referred order dated 04.09.2025; that alleging that post said order though there was compliance upto 01.03.2026 (Sunday) wife had not answered the calls on Sundays thereafter and further alleging that this has deprived the husband of the opportunity of talking to his children, captioned contempt case has been filed before this Court on 04.04.2026; that there were three earlier listings of the captioned contempt case on 07.04.2026, 09.04.2026 and 21.04.2026 when the matter was re-notified; that the contempt case is before this Division Bench today. [3] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel on record for contempt petitioner/husband submits that last Sunday i.e., 26.04.2026 when contempt petitioner/husband made a VC call to his wife, she answered the call and the contempt petitioner was able to talk to the two minor children. [4] In the light of the narrative thus far, we deem it appropriate to give a closure to the captioned contempt case albeit with preservation of all rights and contentions of the contempt petitioner/husband to come back to this Court either with a similar contempt petition or with any other appropriate application or move any other appropriate Fora including Family court if there is breach. [5] To be noted, though obvious, for the sake of specificity, we clarify that we have only captured the submissions made by learned counsel for the contempt petitioner/husband and we have not expressed any view or opinion on the alleged breach. Page 4 of 4 [6] This Court is informed that in the restitution of conjugal suit is pending in the Family court, pleadings are complete, issues have been framed and trial is in the anvil. Let the proceedings in the Family Court continue on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order. [7] Captioned contempt petition is disposed of as closed albeit with preservation of all rights and contentions of contempt petitioner/husband in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom