The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enforce compliance with its orders and undertakings, including through coercive actions such as cancelling passports and securing the presence of parties in contempt proceedings.

ORDER :

In this contempt petition, due to continuous defiant attitude adopted by the two contemnors before us, we are compelled to take coercive action against them.

2. The two connected cases in SLP (C) No. 22990 of 2001 and CA No. 4797 of 1998 preferred separately by the two contemnors arise from the order of the family court at Hyderabad in proceedings for appointment of guardian and custody of the minor child Roshan S. Jude, now aged about five years. The proceedings for appointment of a guardian and custody of the above named minor child were instituted by the husband as estrangement developed in the married life of the couple, that is, the petitioner and contemnor Hannah Grace Jude (hereinafter referred to as husband and wife a respectively). Contemnor 2 is the mother of Contemnor 1 and shall be referred hereinafter as the grandmother of the minor child.

3. The factual background leading to passing of this order for taking coercive steps against the two contemnors is as under:

The petitioner and Contemnor 1 were married according to Christian rites at Hyderabad on 7-2-1989 and a son was bora to them on 2-5-1997. The D married couple was living at that time in USA. Differences Arose between the husband and the wife due to the alleged involvement and behaviour of Contemnor 2 grandmother. The wife approached the Circuit Court, Maryland in USA where she had given birth to her child, to obtain a protective order with respect to the child against the petitioner. The court at USA gave protective order on condition that the child will not be taken out of the c jurisdiction of that court. The wife, however, brought the child to India on 14-4-1998 and kept him in the care and custody of Contemnor 2, the grandmother of the child. Thereafter the wife, leaving the child to the care of her mother in India, left India. The petitioner came back to India to take care of the child. On 1-5-1998, he approached the Family Court at Hyderabad with petition under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act to d seek his appointment as guardian of the minor child and for his custody. A cross-petition was filed by the grandmother of the child in the Family Court seeking restoration of the custody of the child on the allegation that on the child's birthday he was taken into custody by the husband. The Family Court at Hyderabad on 19-8-1998 rejected the prayer of the husband for custody and directed restoration of the custody of the child to the grandmother. The e husband was only granted visiting rights.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the husband approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Civil Revision Petition No. 3229 Of 1998. The high court in civil revision granted custody of the Minor child to the husband with visiting rights to the wife on condition of the husband depositing a sum of rupees five lakhs in fixed deposit in the bank in the name of the child.

5. The wife has approached this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 15185 of 1998. Looking at the age of the child, this court, by order passed on 15-9-1998, granted interim custody of the child to the wife with permission to her to take the child to USA on the condition of furnishing a written undertaking to bring the child back to India on or before 25-9-1998. The Family Court was directed to dispose of the pending case before it for appointment of guardian and custody of the minor child within a period of 18 months. The terms of the order passed by this Court on 15-9-1998 read as under:

"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 the condition that both the appellants file undertakings before this Court on or before 25-9-1998 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 requi