Gauhati High Court
Manzil Hussain vs Samima Abdur Atiq on 27 March, 2026
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
