MANMOHAN, J:

1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 1st October, 2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court in G.S. 11/14. It is the case of the petitioner-mother that respondent no. 1 father in violation of the consensual parenting plan accepted by the Guardianship Court vide aforesaid order, had taken the minor child to Malaysia on 31st December, 2014 even though he had undertaken that he would not take the minor child abroad till such time the divorce decree is passed by way of second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. On 2nd February, 2015, learned Predecessor of this Court had issued a notice to respondent no. 1 returnable for 17th July, 2015. On 17th July, 2015, this Court had passed the following order :-

"Prima facie this is a case of child abduction by the respondent-father, who is stated to be residing in Malaysia.

Since the service report is still awaited, the respondent-father is permitted to be served upon deposit of process fee by way of e-mail and courier in addition to registered post.

As the respondent-father is an Indian passport holder, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India is impleaded as a necessary and proper party because if the facts stated in the petition are correct, then this Court may be inclined to issue orders for cancellation of his passport. Accordingly, let an amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week.

Issue notice to the newly impleaded necessary and proper party through standing counsel for Union of India by registered post as well as dasti, returnable for 26th August, 2015."

3. On 26th August, 2015, learned counsel for respondent no.1 entered appearance and at her request she was given an opportunity to file a reply affidavit within one week. Respondent no. 1 and the minor child were directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing.

4. On 7th September, 2015, respondent no. 1 and the minor child appeared in Court. They were directed to deposit their passports with the Deputy Registrar (Appellate) of this Court and Ministry of External Affairs was directed to issue directions to FRRO that neither respondent no. 1 nor the minor child shall travel abroad till further orders. Thereafter at the insistence of the counsel, this Court met both the petitioner and respondent no. 1 as well as minor child. But as efforts to resolve the matter did not succeed, the matter was heard on merits.

5. Since the parties have levelled serious personal allegations against each other and insisted that the same be recorded, it is directed that in the order that is to be uploaded, initials of the parties would only be mentioned.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

6. Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, learned counsel for petitioner stated that on 1st October, 2014, respondent no. 1 had given a solemn undertaking to the Principal Judge, Family Court in Guardianship Case No. 11/2014, which had attained finality. According to him, as per the undertaking the custody of the minor child was to remain solely with the petitioner-mother and respondent no. 1-father could not have taken the minor child of seven years abroad at all.

7. He further stated that respondent no. 1 sought visitation of the minor child from 27th December, 2014 till 1st January, 2015 and he also sought minor's passport as an ID for flight journey to Goa. He contended that on 29th December, 2014, the respondent no. 1 surreptitiously purchased an air-ticket for Malaysia for the minor child without taking any prior consent of the petitioner and it was only by email dated 1st January, 2015, that he informed the petitioner that he had whisked away the child to Malaysia for good. He stated that respondent No. 1 ignored the petitioner?s call on the 30th and even when he spoke to her on 31st, he did not inform her about taking the minor child to Malaysia. Mr. Goburdhun stated that petitioner immediately asked the respondent no. 1 to return the child and