IMPORTANT POINT
Breach of an unconditional undertaking given to Supreme Court would amount to contempt of Supreme Court.

Headnote:Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Breach of an unconditional undertaking given to Supreme Court-High Court granted custody of minor child to the applicant husband in an appeal under Guardians and Wards Act-SLP by wife and her mother-Supreme Court granted interim custody of child to wife with permission to take child to USA on conditions of furnishing a written undertaking to bring the child back to India as and when Family Court directed to whom matter was remanded-Respondents submitted undertaking and child was taken away to USA by respondent No. 1 -Family Court granted custody of child to husband applicant and directed respondent No.1 to hand over custody of minor child within one month-Non-compliance of direction-Contempt Petition-Respondents failing to follow and abide by even direction of Supreme Court-Respondents held guilty of contempt of Supreme Court-Respondent No. 2 being an old lady, sentence of fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed with default sentence-Three months SI with fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on respondent No. 1-Union of India directed to take steps to ensure compliance of order.
Held : From the facts stated above it is apparent that the attitude of the contemnors is without any doubt defiant and contemptuous. They were given custody of the minor child on the condition of filing undertakings before this Court to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Family Court. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have played with the Court, by giving unconditional undertakings for securing the custody of the child. It is true that respondent No. 2, the mother of respondent No. 1 has stated before this court that respondent No. 1 is now not abiding by the instructions given by her to produce the child before this Court and the Family Court. Further, it is also clear from the conduct of respondent No.1 that she has no regard for the notices issued by this Court. If the notice issued for Apex Court of this land is willfully disobeyed, it would send a wrong signal to everybody in the country. It is a sad experience that due regard is not shown even to the undertakings order notice issued. Hence, we hold that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are guilty for committing contempt of this Court. Further, we do not think that this is a fit case for showing mercy as contended by learned senior counsel. Ms. Indira Jaisingh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that respondent No. 2, who is aged about 65 years, has taken enough steps to secure the presence of respondent No.1 and to abide by the undertaking given by her. On the question of punishment, learned senior counsel submitted that in any case considering the age of respondent No. 2, sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed upon her. In our view, even though respondent No.2 has played major part in the aforesaid episode, considering her age and the fact that she has an old husband to look after, we think that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice. Hence a fine of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed upon her, in default three months simple imprisonment. It is also ordered that her passport would be seized for a period of five years. For respondent No. 1 considering the fact that she is well educated serving in prestigious institution namely, the World Bank and her totally defiant attitude, we do not think that this would be a fit case for taking a lenient view and not imposing sentence of imprisonment. Even though she does not deserve mercy because of her motivated behaviour yet we impose only three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Fine to be paid within one month. (Paras 16 to 19)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.- This petition for Contempt is filed by the applicant-husband with a prayer for punishing the respondents-wife and mother-in-law for the breach of undertaking given by them and also for breach of directions issued by this Court.

2. By order dated 15th September, 1998, this Court permitted respondent No. 1 - wife to take the child to USA on the condition that respondents would file undertaking before the Court to the effect that wife will appear before the family court as and when required, and it would be open to the applicant-husband to visit the child in USA after making prior arrangement with the wife.

3. The brief facts of this case are that-appellant and respondent No.1 were married on 7-2-1989 at Hyderabad according to Christian rites. Soon after marriage, the couple left for America. On 2-5-1997, a son was born out of this wedlock. Because of strained relationship between the wife and husband, both started living separately. Wife approached the Circuit Court, Maryland in USA and got issued a protective order against the husband on condition that the child will not be taken out of the jurisdiction of that court. The wife, however, brought the child to India on 14.4.1998 and after keeping him in the care and custody of her mother respondent No. 2, she left India. On knowing this, husband dashed back to India on 23rd April 1998 and on 30th April, 1998 he took over the custody of the child from respondent No.2 for celebrating the birthday of the child which was on 2-5-1998.

4. Thereafter, on 1-5-1998, the husband filed O.P. No. 300 of 1998 before the Family Court at Hyderabad under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, seeking an order appointing him as guardian of the minor Child. Respondent No. 2 grand-mother also moved the same Court for restoring the custody of the child to her. The Family Court by order dated 19-8-1998 dismissed the application of the husband and directed him to restore the custody of child to the grandmother. Aggrieved thereby, the husband filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3229 of 1998 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which was allowed and the custody of the child was given to the husband with visiting rights to the wife.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed S.L.P. No. 15185 of 1998 before this Court. This Court by order dated 15-9-1998 granted interim custody of the child to the wife with permission to take the child to USA on the condition of furnishing a written undertaking to bring the child back to India and disposed of the matter by passing the following order:-

"Special leave granted.

Looking to the age of the child, the interim custody of the child is given to the 1st appellant - mother. She will be at liberty to take the child to USA on condition that both the appellants file undertakings before this Court on or before 25th of September, 1998 to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Family Court and the 1st appellant will also file an undertaking to the effect that the 1st appellant will appear before the Family Court as and when required by the Family Court. If during the interregnum the respondent wants to visit the child in USA, he can do so after making prior arrangement with the 1st appellant to see the child. Passport of the child should be released on the filing of the undertaking. The impugned order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Family Court should dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 18 months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

6. After passing of the aforesaid order, both the respondents submitted their undertakings by way of affidavits in this Court. The relevant portion of the undertakings is as under:-

"By Respondent No. 1 (Wife)

As directed by this Hon ble Court in the order dated 15-9-1998, I hereby undertake to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Hon ble Family Court and further undertake to appear before the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 671

IMPORTANT POINTBreach of an unconditional undertaking given to Supreme Court would amount to contempt of Supreme Court.

IMPORTANT POINT
Breach of an unconditional undertaking given to Supreme Court would amount to contempt of Supreme Court.