Chandrashekar Mungerveli v. The Commmissioner Of Police,

CRL MP No. 7946 of 2017 AND HCP No. 2367 of 2010 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] This petition has been filed by the father of the minor child, who is living abroad. Though a larger prayer has been sought for, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the earlier order passed with respect to the interaction between the minor child and the father through Skype will have to be given effect to by the third respondent in letter and spirit, as from the month of September, 2018 onwards, the same has not been done properly. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent while denying the above said submission made, has in turn submitted that there is no difficulty in complying with the earlier order by permitting the child to interact with the petitioner on Sundays. In fact, communication is being sent by the third respondent to the petitioner intimating the time of interaction on Sundays. However, during examination time, the same is not possible.

3. We do not find any reason for conflict in this case. Both the parties have agreed to permit the child to have interaction with the petitioner during Sundays at the convenient time to be intimated by the third respondent. In such view of the matter, we only make it clear that the third respondent should take all possible steps to keep the interaction going between the minor child and the father as that would be more beneficial to the child in the years to come. We also clarify that in the event of ensuing examination, the arrangement need not be followed and in which case, the third respondent shall give due intimation to the petitioner. We hope and trust the parties would adhere to the orders passed.

In view of the above, the miscellaneous petition stands closed. (M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 14.06.2019 mmi/ssm

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

(ssm) CRL MP No. 7946 of 2017 and HCP No. 2367 of 2010 14.06.2019