Application for Modification of Child Access Order Dismissed as Not Maintainable.


11 June 2025 Child Custody >> Family Law  

In Arvind Kumar Khemka v/s Meghna Khemka & Others., the court has dismissed an Interlocutory Application (IA) that sought to recall or modify an order dated February 8, 2024, passed in WP (Crl.) No. 27 of 2023. The applicant in this IA was Respondent No. 7 in the original writ petition.

The applicant's counsel argued for the IA's maintainability based on new developments since the original order. Specifically, the minor daughter of the parties has been admitted to Mussoorie International School, which has restrictions on student telephonic access. The previous court order had granted the writ petitioner/opposite party telephonic access to the minor child.

 
 

The court carefully considered these arguments but ultimately found the IA to be not maintainable. It referred to well-established legal principles, citing Supreme Court judgments in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Dutt Sharma & Anr. (1987) and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, & Ors. Vs. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. (2024), which emphasize that a court generally becomes functus officio (loses jurisdiction) after a matter has been finally disposed of.

Exceptions to this principle are rare, typically limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or extending time, and are to be invoked sparingly. The court noted that the current application, seeking a modification based on subsequent events, does not fall within these narrow exceptions.

The court also highlighted that the original order dated February 8, 2024, explicitly stated that the writ petitioner/applicant had the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for any grievances. Furthermore, while acknowledging the school's communication regarding phone restrictions, the court pointed out that the opposite party (the one granted access) has not expressed any grievance, nor has the school itself.

Finally, the applicant's counsel mentioned that the opposite party has filed a contempt petition alleging violation of the original order. The court observed that contempt jurisdiction applies only in cases of willful disobedience and stated that the applicant would have the liberty to raise all relevant defenses in the contempt petition.

Therefore, finding no merit, the court dismissed the IA.