Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 510
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Douglas Breckenridge
Versus
Jhilmil Breckenridge
CONT.CAS(C) 815 OF 2011 and C.M. No. 20360 OF 2011
Decided on : 21-02-2012
For the Petitioner:Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate, with P. Banerjee & Atreyi Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate, with Harish Malik, Advocates.
A party who deliberately and willfully disobeys an order of the Court is guilty of contempt of Court.
Headnote:
The respondent, in a divorce petition, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against the petitioner, claiming custody of their youngest child, Liam. The petitioner filed a contempt petition, alleging that the respondent had deliberately and willfully disobeyed orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which had granted him custody of Liam.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have four sons. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent. The respondent filed a complaint under the DV Act, claiming custody of their youngest child, Liam. The petitioner filed a contempt petition, alleging that the respondent had deliberately and willfully disobeyed orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which had granted him custody of Liam.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which had granted the petitioner custody of Liam. The court also found that the respondent had abused the process of the Court, calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice. The court held that the respondent was guilty of contempt of Court.
Issues: Whether the respondent had deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which had granted the petitioner custody of Liam.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was guilty of contempt of Court because she had deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which had granted the petitioner custody of Liam. The court also found that the respondent had abused the process of the Court, calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the contempt petition and held the respondent guilty of contempt of Court. The court directed the respondent to purge the contempt by forthwith restoring the custody of the child Liam with the petitioner. The court also held the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and learned ASJ in the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the DV Act, in so far as they deal with the aspect of custody of the minor child Liam, to be null and void. The court also subjected the respondent to costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Key Points: - A party deliberately and willfully disobeying a court order is guilty of contempt of Court (!) . - The respondent was found guilty of contempt of Court for deliberately and willfully disobeying orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, which granted the petitioner custody of Liam (!) (!) . - The respondent was also found to have abused the process of the Court, calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice (!) (!) . - The court allowed the contempt petition and directed the respondent to purge the contempt by forthwith restoring the custody of the child Liam to the petitioner (!) . - Orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and ASJ in DV Act proceedings concerning Liam's custody were declared null and void (!) . - The respondent was subjected to costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- (!) . - The court held that the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 qualified as "orders" under Section 2(14) of the CPC (!) (!) . - The respondent's conduct, including suppression of material facts and orders, was deemed to be a fraud upon the court and an abuse of the process of the court (!) (!) . - The respondent's counsel's conduct was found to be highly suspicious, negligent, and unprofessional (!) . - The respondent was found guilty of disobeying the orders by removing the child Liam from the petitioner's custody and taking him into her own custody (!) .
What is the definition of contempt of court in relation to willful disobedience of court orders?
What constitutes an "order" under Section 2(14) of the Civil Procedure Code?
What are the consequences of abusing the process of the court and calculatedly hampering judicial proceedings?
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with the allegations to the effect that the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, passed in Guardian Case No.66/2010 and also the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.10.2011 in CC No.332/1, and of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.10.2011 passed in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) proceedings.
2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have four sons. The petitioner has preferred a divorce petition against the respondent.
3. The petitioner filed a custody petition before the Guardianship Judge, Saket, New Delhi. In the petition the petitioner stated that he resides with his three elder children at C-87, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, of whom he has custody, whereas the respondent resides with her parents at 68, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi. According to the petitioner, the respondent abandoned the matrimonial home on Raksha Bandhan day, i.e. 24.08.2010. She left the three elder children with the petitioner, and took away the youngest child Liam with her. The custody petition had been preferred to seek custody of the youngest son Liam from the respondent wife. The petitioner also moved an application in those proceedings to seek interim custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
4. The petitioner apprehended that the respondent would take the child Liam with her to U.K., where she was allegedly having an adulterous relationship with one Dr. Nooruddin Ahmed of Aylesbury, U.K. On 09.09.2010, the Guardianship Judge recorded the undertaking of the respondent that she shall not take the child Liam from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, without the permission of the Court.
5. The proceedings before the Guardian Court were fixed on 30.09.2010. The respondent had, in the meantime, left for U.K. to allegedly meet her alleged paramour. She could not take the child Liam with her on account of her undertaking given to the Guardianship Judge on 09.09.2010. According to the petitioner, the child Liam, who was left by the respondent with her parents in Friends Colony, was handed over by his parents-in-law to him.
6. Accordingly, on 30.09.2010, the child Liam was produced by the petitioner before the Court. The learned Guardianship Judge saw for himself that the petitioner had the custody of the child Liam, who was produced in Court by the petitioner. Consequently, the learned Guardianship Judge, upon consideration of the matter and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the custody of the child Liam had come into the hands of the petitioner, disposed of the application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act., 1890.
7. The order dated 30.09.2010 is relevant and, therefore, reproduced herein below:
“G No 66/10
30.09.2010
Present: Sh.P. Banerjee and Liza Baruah advocate for petitioner with petitioner.
None for respondent.
In the morning one advocate appeared on behalf of respondent and filed reply to the petition of the petitioner along with extra copy for the petitioner. The copy of the petition has been supplied to petitioner.
It is informed by counsel for petitioner that respondent left Delhi and went to U.K. On 16.09.2010 by leaving the child Liam at her father’s home. It is further submitted that the parents of respondent dropped the child at the residence of petitioner and since, then the child in the custody of petitioner. It is further submitted that since the child has already come in the custody of petitioner, therefore, the application for interim relief may kindly be disposed of. Considered. The petitioner is present with the child in the court. Keeping in view the fact that the child whose custody was
