In view of the above, we dispose of the contempt petition giving liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate court/forum for seeking custody of the child, Kislay, or any other appropriate relief in this regard. In case, such a petition is..

In view of the above, we dispose of the contempt petition giving liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate court/forum for seeking custody of the child, Kislay, or any other appropriate relief in this regard. In case, such a petition is filed, the court concerned is requested to proceed and dispose of the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the consent order dated 3.5.2008 or dismissal order of the writ petition dated 29.9.2009 passed by this Court regarding the custody and visiting rights of the parties towards the child, most expeditiously. Needless to say that the court concerned would proceed with the case, if any, without taking note of any observation made hereinabove in this judgment as we have expressed no opinion on merit on the issue of custody.

Contempt of Court Act, 1971

In the case in hand on taking into account all the circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that it would not be wholly reasonable to hold that the respondent withdrew large amounts from his account with Pictet in violation of this Cou..

In the case in hand on taking into account all the circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that it would not be wholly reasonable to hold that the respondent withdrew large amounts from his account with Pictet in violation of this Court’s orders. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the respondent cannot be held guilty of contempt. Coming back to the order, dated April 1, 2010 by which this Court held that the respondent had withdrawn money from his account with Pictet by flouting the orders of this Court, it is to be noted that that order is founded on the premise that the respondent had not denied the allegation made by the petitioner against him. It is, however, to be noted that the respondent in his reply to the contempt petition filed on March 3, 2010 had stated in paragraph 2 (XIV) as under: “The Respondent takes liberty for reiterating that he has not withdrawn any amount in spite of (sic.) the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” The order dated April 1, 2010, was, thus, clearly based on an erroneous premise of fact. It is, accordingly, recalled. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the contempt petition. It is dismissed