yr @ © ” y of 14HIMA 254/721 ANUJ KUMAR Vs. MALTT 02.12.2024 Present: None for the petitioner: Respondent in person. ‘An application for review of the Order dated 04.09.2024 has been filed by the petitionse/ custodial parent/ father, on the last date of hearing, Arguments were addressed at length. Order dated 04.09.21 parent/ mother to have 24, this It has been submitted that vide Court has allowed the respondent/ non-custodial visitation rights in the minor children Baby ‘Mxxxx’, Masler *Dexxx’? and Master *Axxxx’. It is submited thatthe two children namely Baby “Msooxx! and Master ‘Droog are studying in different Gurukuls and that the respective Institutions do not permit the students to be taken away on occasion be it any Sunday; any festival ot even for any family function. They can meet their parents only on the last Sunday 0} f every month from 09:00 AM to 05:00 PM and that too with the prior respective Gurukuls, AU! other permission of the administrators of the grounds of application are also pressed into service, at the Order of visitation be set-aside and the It is prayed 1 the children in Gurukul respondent/ non-custodial parent ‘according to the time and day prescribed by the respective Gurukuls. The application for review hus been vehemently opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ non-custodial parent. The following 3 formal reply: points are pressed into serv <==1.__This isthe second teview application filed by the custodial parent add ihe sole purpose is to d ve the children of the consortium of their mother and vice-versa.has been deliberately bri e custodial parent : , without the discharge of the Pr d. The sole purpose evious Counses 1 asi Sch application: A Counsel on recor and there are as many a8 10 oF more CONS : who is financially at is to harass the respondent/ non-custodial parent the receiving end. 3, The:petitioner/ custodial parent las committed : fhe minor child Master Axxxx for jates after the a deliberate civil Contempt of Court by not bringi visitation as per the Orders of this Court on various ¢ 1024. passing of the Order dated 04,0 4. The petitionet/ custodial parent is in the arrears of maintenance and deliberately not paying the maintenance due to the respondent! nore custodial parent with the sole purpose of making her bleed for want of maintenance. Non-payment of maintenance has pushed the respondent against the wall and she is forced to lead a life of vagrancy, therefore curtailing her right to adequately defend herself. On the other hand, the petitioner’ custodial parent is having the luxury of engaging a number of Counsel, whose Vakalatnamas on record, and he is misusing the same to delay the progress of the case 3. The non-bringing of the child Master ‘Axxx’, who was in the custody of the petitioner/ custodial parent, by itself shows the conduct of the petitioner in stark colours and that he does riot want to comply with even that part of the Order of the Court which is within his powers and control. ‘The aim and objective is very much clear i.e, to deprive the respondent/ non-custodial parent as well as the children themselves to meet one another and develop a healthy relationship. This works against the welfare of the children. SG, The documents filed on’ page 19 onwards, issued by the Prachoraya Arsh Kenya Gurukul and other institution, are procuredNay oe 27 ry SAR ta 2 signalrese he 4 lot of space between the matter) content and the sig 2 possibility of Page 19 being a forged document cannot towie : Even otherwise, the complicity of the said Gurukuls with the petitioner!” custodial parent is sibly manifest. 7. The application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs and action be taken against the petitioner/ custodial parent and all other persons, who are in Jeague with the petitioner, to help him achieve his wrongtul ends. 8 Inrebutt the averments of respondent are refuted 9. [have considered the rival submissions. 10. The application for review is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay w/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Without going into the the delay is echnical considerations and in the wider interest of justic. condoned and the application is allowed to be heard on merits. Il. Before passing the Order on 04.09.2024, which was on an application of petitioner for seeking modification of Order dated 07.02.2024, proposals were invited fom the parties for ensuring their Participation in the Order of the visitation of the children by the respondent’ non-custodial parent. After consideration of both the proposals and after due deliberations, the Order dated 04.09.2024 was passed. The sole purpose, duly reflected in the said order, was to ensure a connect between the children and the non-custodial parent/ respondent. ‘The wellare of the children was the running theme of the Order by ensiiring a holistic contact with estranged parent, 12. The conduct of the petitioner was also taken @ note of in the said order wherein it was recorded that he had admitted two elder children in it residential institution in his: sole pretogative and withoutin accordance with the law. ~ 18. It is for the second time that the petitioner! custodial parent 1S agitating the same set of facts again and again i.e. proverbially ‘it is old wine in a new bottle’, 19, Considering the entire set of facts and circumstances on revord, the review petition as filed is an oblique exercise to over-teach the process of the Court; with intent to deprive the children and the nor custodial parent of consortium of one another and further by depriving the maintenance awarded to the non-custodial parent thereby making her defenceless. 20. ‘The award of maintenance is an act of balancing so that the non- eaming spouse is not rendered defenceless for want of maintenance and ultimately succumbs. In view of the above, the review application of the petitioner! custodial parent is misconceived and is thus dismissed with @ cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) payable by him to the respondent/ non-custodial parent 22. The petitioner is directed to clear the entire arrears of maintenance by the next date, else to show cause as to why his petition be not dismissed for non-payment of maintenance to the respondent’ non- caming spouse. 23, The patitioner is also called upon to show cause as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against him for willful and deliberate non-compliance of the Order dated 04.09.2024, constituting civil contempt. ‘The Heads of the Institution, namely Shrimadayanand Vedrsh vvidyalaya Gurukul, Faridabad, Haryana and Arsh Kanya Gurukul, li, Sonipat, Haryana, are called upon to produce the approval of the