Custody agreements must be strictly followed; wilful breach of such orders constitutes contempt, especially when the child's welfare is at stake.

ORDER :

1. This Contempt Petition is the outcome of an unfortunate matrimonial dispute between the petitioner–wife and the respondent– husband. They have a male child – Pranav who is about 12 years old. As it happens in every such dispute, the child is the worst sufferer.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 2007. After the marriage, the petitioner started residing with the respondent who was already a resident of USA since 2004. The child was born on 25th October 2007. The child is a citizen of USA. According to the case of the petitioner, after the birth of their child, at the instance of the respondent, both the petitioner and the son were sent to Canada where the respondent’s mother and sister were residing. The petitioner’s case is that on 27th July 2013, she along with her son were thrown out of the house which compelled her to come to India in August 2013 along with her son.

3. The respondent adopted a remedy before the Canadian Court for the custody of his son. An ex-parte order granting sole custody to the respondent was passed by the concerned Court. The said Court issued directions to various agencies and INTERPOL to enforce the order. Even a warrant was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. The respondent adopted a remedy in India by filing a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the child before the Rajasthan High Court. In the said writ petition, there was a settlement arrived at which is recorded in the order dated 17th December 2015. The order discloses that the parties agreed to live together on the terms set out in the said order. Both of them agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other within four months. The respondent agreed to find out three or four suitable flats in USA with an option for the petitioner to select one. One of the clauses of the settlement was that till the petitioner shifts to USA, the respondent will regularly visit India. Similarly, the petitioner agreed to visit USA along with her son.

4. The respondent filed a contempt petition before the High Court alleging that the petitioner had committed breaches of the consent order. The High Court convicted the petitioner for committing contempt. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court for challenging the High Court’s decision. This Court while setting aside the order of conviction, ordered the revival of the disposed of habeas corpus petition. On 11th January 2019, a Division Bench of the High Court disposed of both the habeas corpus petition and the contempt petition by dismissing the same. However, certain directions were issued for providing access to the respondent to meet his child physically as well as through the medium of video conferencing. The judgment was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1341-1343 of 2019 preferred by the respondent. In September 2019, an order of payment of maintenance was passed against the respondent by the Family Court at Ajmer. In the same month, the Family Court at Ajmer passed a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.

5. In the aforesaid criminal appeals, a series of orders were passed by this Court starting from the order dated 5th April 2021. This Court permitted the respondent to take his son to Canada from 1st June 2021 to 31st June 2021 with a direction to bring back the child t