Primary sources · Judgment
ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI VS. VIVEK KUMAR CHATURVEDI
- Supreme Court adapter could not find a case number for diary number 720892025.
2026 INSC 818Page 1 of 4
Contempt Petition (C) No.251 of 2026
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
Contempt Petition (C) No.251 of 2026
In
Criminal Appeal No.623 of 2025
Ashok Kumar Tiwari
….Petitioner
Versus
Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Ors.
….Respondents
O R D E R
The above contempt petition was filed by the maternal
grandparents of the minor child, alleging non-compliance of the
judgment passed at Annexure P2. Unfortunately, the mother of the
child, the daughter of the petitioner is no more, and the
grandparents were looking after the child.
2. Relying on the decisions of this Court, which permitted
consideration of the custody of a child under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, when it was sought by the father, the natural
guardian, we were persuaded to handover the custody to the father,
one of the respondent contemnors herein. We also noticed the fact
Page 2 of 4
Contempt Petition (C) No.251 of 2026
that the paternal grandfather had deposited an amount of Rs.10
lakhs in the child’s name and also had taken out a life insurance
policy of Rs.25 lakhs, the beneficiary of which is the minor child. The
father was holding a responsible position in the administrative
services of the State, who had remarried, purportedly for ensuring
due care of the minor child.
3. The child having been separated from the father in 2021, we
directed the custody to be continued with the grandparents till
30.04.2025, till the end of the academic year. The father was allowed
to familiarize with the child during the said period on alternate
weekends and also was also permitted to take the child to his
paternal house during second Saturdays. On 01.05.2025, the child
was to be handed over to the custody of the father in the presence
of the jurisdictional Station House Officer. The grandparents were
also given visitation rights, post handing over of the custody,
permitting them to take the child to their house on every second
Saturday, starting from June 2025.
4. The contempt petition was filed, alleging that the child was
not even once sent to the grandparents. The father raised a
contention that the grandparents also did not come to take custody
Page 3 of 4
Contempt Petition (C) No.251 of 2026
of the child during second Saturdays. Admittedly, the father has now
moved from the earlier location due to transfer, which is said to be
far from the house of the grandparents.
5. On the last date of hearing, after hearing the parties we
passed an order on 31.07.2026, directing the child to be produced
before us today. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are impleaded as
contemnors were relieved from personal appearance.
6. Today when we took up the matter in the Committee Room,
first we interacted with the child. Suffice it to observe that having
interacted with the child we are of the opinion that the interest and
welfare of the child would be best served if he is allowed to be
looked after by his grandparents. The three maternal uncles of the
child also resides with his grandparents, one of whom was present
before us, who submitted that, in fact, the child had obtained
admission in one of the prestigious institutions and even the fees
were paid, when the order was passed handing over the custody of
the child to the father.
7. Considering the overall circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the child should be handed over to the grandparents. The
maternal uncle was allowed to take the child from this Court. We
Page 4 of 4
Contempt Petition (C) No.251 of 2026
make it clear that insofar as the claim for maintenance, the
grandparents would be entitled to pursue the same in accordance
with law. As far as visitation rights are concerned, the father has to
first build confidence in the child and if the child also desires, the
father may be allowed to visit the child, once in three months but
under strict supervision of the grandparents or maternal uncles.
8. We quite realize that we were dealing with a contempt case
but after interacting with the child, we were of the opinion that
exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction is expedient, under
which, we have passed the above order.
9. The contempt case stands closed but with the aforesaid
directions regarding the custody of the child.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 07, 2026.