Contempt proceedings for breach of mediated visitation rights may be closed upon demonstrated subsequent compliance.

The Petitioner (husband) and Respondent (wife) are embroiled in a matrimonial dispute involving a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

On 04.09.2025, the High Court disposed of an appeal (Mat. App. No. 8 of 2025) based on a mediation settlement where the Respondent undertook to facilitate Video Conferencing (VC) calls between the Petitioner (stationed in Tokyo, Japan) and their two minor children every Sunday at 4:30 pm IST.

The Petitioner filed this contempt petition alleging that the Respondent failed to answer calls from 01.03.2026 to 04.04.2026.

During the hearing on 29.04.2026, the Petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the Respondent had resumed compliance by answering the VC call on 26.04.2026.

1. Whether the Respondent committed contempt of court by willfully violating the undertaking recorded in the order dated 04.09.2025 regarding visitation rights via Video Conferencing.

2. Whether the contempt proceedings should be closed in light of subsequent compliance by the Respondent.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to address the alleged breach of an undertaking given to the court, which is treated as a violation of a court order.

The court also applied the principle of judicial restraint in matrimonial contempt matters where compliance is restored, ensuring that the primary focus remains on the welfare of the children and the continuity of the original matrimonial proceedings (Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955).

The Court observed that the contempt petition was predicated on a specific breach of a mediation settlement that had been elevated to a court-recorded undertaking.

However, the Petitioner’s own counsel conceded that the Respondent had answered the most recent VC call on 26.04.2026, allowing the Petitioner to speak with the children.

Given this restoration of access, the Court reasoned that continuing the contempt proceedings was no longer necessary, provided the Petitioner’s future rights were protected.

The Court clarified that it was not adjudicating on the merits of the previous breach but was acting on the current status of compliance to bring closure to the interlocutory friction while the main matrimonial suit continued in the Family Court.

The Court held that all rights and contentions of the Petitioner remain preserved, allowing him to approach the Court or the Family Court again if further breaches occur.

It further directed the Family Court, Imphal East, to proceed with the trial of the restitution suit on its own merits, unaffected by the observations made in these contempt proceedings.

No order as to costs was made.