Telangana High Court
Sri. Vivek Kumar vs Smt. Smriti Singh on 20 February, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CONTEMPT CASE No.2350 of 2023
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner under Section 10 to 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India to
punish the respondent – contemnor for gross and willful violation of the orders
of this Court dated 04.03.2022 passed in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 against the
order dated 07.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.3645 of 2021 in I.A.No.981 of 2020 in
G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020.
2. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife respectively. Out of
their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child by name Reyansh Singh
born on 18.10.2016. Due to the differences between the petitioner and the
respondent they were residing separately and the minor boy was in the custody
of the respondent i.e. his mother. The petitioner was residing in Netherlands
due to his employment and the respondent was a resident of Narsingi,
Rangareddy District, Telangana. The petitioner filed an application under
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 vide G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 for custody of the
minor and he was allowed visitation rights in the said O.P, as per the orders in
I.A.No.981 of 2020 dated 30.11.2020. The Family Court granted visitation of
the minor boy to the petitioner through video conferencing on every Sunday
2
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
between 11:00 AM to 12:00 Noon for a duration of one hour starting from the
month of December, 2020 and also appointed an Advocate Commissioner /
Coordinator to monitor the process of visitation through video conferencing by
fixing the fee of the Commissioner @ Rs.2,500/- for each visitation to be paid
by the petitioner. The respondent filed C.R.P.No.187 of 2021 to dismiss the
order passed in I.A.No.981 of 2020. This Court dismissed the CRP and upheld
the orders passed in I.A.No.981 of 2020. Subsequently, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.3645 of 2021 in I.A.No.981 of 2020 in G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 seeking
physical visitation rights of the child whenever he was in India and the Family
Court at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District allowed the petition in part granting
visitation rights to the petitioner of his minor son Reyansh Singh on every
Monday and Wednesday between 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM at the Family Court
premises, Rangareddy District whenever the father of the boy was in India. The
said order was passed on 07.01.2022. Against the said order, the respondent
preferred C.R.P.No.291 of 2022. This Court modified the order in I.A.No.3645
of 2021 dated 07.01.2022 granting physical visitation rights of Master Reyansh
to the petitioner on every working Saturday between 01:00 PM to 05:00 PM
whenever the respondent – father comes to India. It was further specified that
whenever he is in Netherlands, the respondent – father could have visitation
rights of the child through video conferencing (online) as ordered by the Court
below in I.A.No.981 of 2020 dated 30.11.2020. For violation of the above
3
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
orders passed in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 dated 04.03.2022, the petitioner
preferred this Contempt.
3. Heard Sri B.Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna
Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent – contemnor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was
disregarding the directions given by this Court in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 and
displaying a flagrant disregard to the orders passed by this Court. Initially,
there was cooperation from the respondent between the period spanning from
04.09.2022 to 19.02.2023. During the above period, there was effective
communication and positive interaction between the father and the child.
However, starting from 26.02.2023, the respondent was non-complying the
directions of this Court. The respondent was instructing the child to verbally
abuse his father and resorted to concealing the child and deliberately refrained
from allowing the child to be seen by the petitioner – father during online
interactions. The respondent had committed numerous violations against the
orders of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.291 of 2022 and 187 of 2021. The respondent
demonstrated a repeated pattern of non-compliance and disobedience and
submitted a list of violations committed by the respondent after dismissal of
C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 and enclosed the reports of the Advocate Commissioner
in support of his contentions.
4
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent
filed five CRPs till date in the High Court to avoid visitations and to avoid
getting punished for violation of access orders and constructed a wall between
the father and son and making the petitioner to run between Family Court and
High Court to exercise his basic and natural right of seeing his own son either
physically or virtually by violating the orders in I.A.No.3645 of 2021. He
further submitted that when the respondent failed to comply the order of the
Family Court for production of the child, the Court imposed costs of
Rs.15,000/- against the respondent on 16.02.2022. The respondent filed
C.R.P.No.829 of 2022 against the said order. This Court in C.R.P.No.829 of
2022 granted interim stay of the said order subject to the petitioner (respondent
herein) depositing one-fourth of the costs imposed by the trial court.
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent –
contemnor gave an undertaking on oath earlier also on 07.04.2021 in Family
Court giving an un-conditional apology for violating the orders in I.A.No.981 of
2020 in G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 for dropping the contempt proceedings against
her, but continued to exhibit such conduct and was committing fresh violations
recklessly, despite an undertaking on oath that she would not violate the Court
orders and prayed to punish the respondent – contemnor for gross and willful
violation of the orders of this Court dated 04.03.2022 in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022
and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithavi Nath
5
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Others 1, Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary,
Baitanik, a Registered Society v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable
Trust2 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34892 of 2014 dated 30.01.2024
and Komal Krishan Arora and Others v. Sandeep Kumar alias Sandeep
Chugh and Others 3. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Kokkanda B.Poondacha and others v. K.D.Ganapathi and
another 4 and the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Harsha
Tipirneni v. Smt. Pooja Tipimeni 5 and of the High Court of Delhi in Douglas
Breckenridge v. Jhilmil Breckenridge6.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the
petitioner had not come up with clean hands and filed the application with a
malicious intention. He was continuously threatening the respondent, her child
and family. Due to which, CC.No.2605 of 2022 was registered under Sections
354-D, 504, 506 IPC and CC.No.2609 of 2023 under Sections 323, 506, 504
IPC and the same were pending on the file of Rajendranagar Court. The
petitioner filed I.A.No.981 of 2020 in G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 for online
visitation of the child during Corona pandemic. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.3645 of 2021 in I.A.No.981 of 2020 in G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 with
1
Civil Appeal No.5024 of 2000 dated 24.08.2004
2
2024 INSC 73
3
Special Leave Appeal (Criminal) No.9497 of 2021 dated 29.03.2023
4
AIR 2011 SC 1353
5
Contempt Case No.481 of 2020 dated 04.12.2020
6
Contempt Case No.815 of 2011 dated 21.02.2012
6
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
false and fabricated submissions falsely claiming that the Delhi High Court has
given visitation rights to the petitioner by concealing the final order. No proper
visitation right order was passed by the Delhi High Court and nothing regarding
visitation had been mentioned or ordered in its final order while transferring all
the cases to Hyderabad. The petitioner had filed a written complaint against the
respondent and her minor son to have been involved in sex racket / flesh trade
for procurement of money and that the respondent was having multiple sexual
intercourse with multiple men in front of her own son and recording the said
videos in front of the child. The respondent filed a complaint against the same
on which a charge sheet was filed, numbered as CC.No.2505 of 2022, which
was pending adjudication and he was evading from all criminal cases. The
respondent preferred C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 against the order passed in
I.A.No.3645 of 2021. This Court clubbed I.A.Nos.981 of 2020 and 3645 of
2021 and passed an order dated 04.03.2022 observing that it was not advisable
to grant visitation rights to the father on working days and modified the order of
the Court below granting physical visitation rights on every working Saturday
between 01:00 PM to 05:00 PM whenever the respondent – father came to
India. The petitioner with a pre-planned criminal conspiracy filed more than 40
/ 50 out of orders with advancement petitions to call the child on non-working
Saturdays and on week days and was forcing the child to leave school back to
back and filed a series of contempt petitions in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022. The
7
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
petitioner concealed the facts that the respondent always came to the Family
Court even when it was informed to her one hour before 01:00 PM or few hours
before Saturdays by calling her counsel stating that he was available in
Hyderabad. The petitioner was intentionally using pressure tactics. The same
was evident from filing of multiple frivolous affidavits in a closed / disposed off
I.A, which would amount to perjury and criminal contempt. The petitioner was
strategically maligning the respondent’s character and was carrying out a
personal vendetta against her. The present petition was also another attempt in
furtherance on his intention.
5.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that there was a
serious threat to the life of the respondent and the minor child. The petitioner
had committed serious criminal offences of stalking, allegations of prostitution
against the respondent and her son. There was a protection order in DVC.No.24
of 2023 against the petitioner. The respondent already filed a modification
petition on 04.07.2023 against the orders in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022. The
petitioner was not furnishing his correct address in Netherlands or in Hyderabad
and was playing fraud upon the Court. The Embassy of India in the
Netherlands had given a non-traceable report stating that no such person by
name Vivek Kumar was living in Netherlands. Thereafter, the petitioner created
a false local address and was evading giving his current foreign address and
details. This Court in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 vide order dated 04.03.2022
8
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
considering the criminal and abusive conduct of the petitioner upon the
respondent and her son, did not grant any access other than on working
Saturdays that too inside the Court premises, only in the presence of respondent
– mother. More than 40 out of orders / advance petitions and urgent memos
were filed by the petitioner in G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020 in I.A.No.3645 of 2021
and I.A.No.981 of 2020. The petitioner was filing the applications with similar
prayers numerous times with false affidavits. Three charge sheets were filed
against the petitioner, the petitioners’ parents, brother and sister-in-law.
CC.Nos.3092 of 2022, 2605 of 2022, 2609 of 2022, D.V.C.No.24 of 2023,
M.C.No.149 of 2023 and a modification petition in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 were
pending against the petitioner. There was a personal bond and friendship
between the Advocate Commissioner / Coordinator and the petitioner and they
were intentionally misleading the judiciary. The respondent had submitted her
objections to the coordinator’s report and also filed an application for his
removal. There were several instances where the petitioner had committed
violence, making derogatory, unethical comments on respondent and her child.
The same had never been submitted by the coordinator in any of his reports.
The coordinator suppressed and concealed all material facts and not disclosed
the same fairly and truly, but stated them in a distorted manner misleading the
Court. The petitioner was not contesting the divorce O.P.No.1659 of 2019 filed
by the respondent. He had not filed his counter till date. He neither submitted
9
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
his assets and income affidavit and not contesting the Maintenance O.P.No.996
of 2021 and committed Contempt of C.R.P.No.618 of 2022 filed by the
respondent herein. He was also stalking the respondent and making allegations
against her as a prostitute and that she was involved in sex racket / flesh trade.
He was evading Maintenance, Divorce O.P.s. and evading from contesting
G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2020, as the respondent had submitted all evidence of his
abuse, assault, violence and vulgar allegations made by the petitioner upon the
child. If trial started, the petitioner was aware that he would be exposed and
would be sent to jail immediately. He was also evading criminal trials and was
filing frivolous contempt petitions with false, fabricated and blatant lies and
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv
Baijal7. She also relied upon the orders of this Court in W.P.No.34732 of 2023
between the same parties delivered on 25.04.2024 and the copies of the
complaints lodged by her in various criminal cases and 161 Cr.P.C. statements
of the witnesses recorded in the said criminal cases and the order of this Court
in C.R.P.No.183 of 2024 dated 04.04.2024.
6. On hearing the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration
now in this Contempt Case is: Whether the respondent – contemnor had
committed willful disobedience and flouted the orders of this Court and if so,
whether she is liable for Contempt?
7
Civil Appeal No.2628 of 2009 dated 17.04.2009
10
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
7. This Court in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 dated 04.03.2022 modified the order
in I.A.No.3645 of 2021 dated 07.01.2022 and granted physical visitation rights
of Master Reyansh Singh to the respondent – petitioner on every working
Saturday between 01:00 PM to 05:00 PM whenever the respondent – father
comes to India and whenever he is in Netherlands, the respondent – father can
have visitation rights of the child through video conferencing (online) as
ordered by the Court below dated 30.11.2020.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the
respondent was willfully violating the above orders of this Court.
9. The list of violations pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in the present contempt are that:
(i) On 12.03.2023, the child was taught to close the laptop and provoked to
abuse the petitioner – father. The report of the Advocate Commissioner would
disclose that:
“It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondents joined meeting on
time and the meeting commenced at 11 am. The Petitioner greeted the kid and
showed him the portable Philips karaoke. The Petitioner even displayed a big
Fortnite toy gun for the kid. After 3 minutes the kid closed the laptop. The
Respondent No.1 turned on the video again. At 6 minutes the kid addressed
the Petitioner as “Vivek, why do you make me talk to you, when I don’t want
to talk to you”. The kid said he was very angry and closed the laptop. The kid
again closed the laptop with force and exited the meeting. After 5 minutes, the
Respondent No.1 logged in again. The kid was seen hiding behind the
11
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023pillows. The kid was seen throwing pillows at the Laptop. The Respondent
No.1 did not stop the child while he was throwing things at laptop. I
immediately called the counsel of the Respondent No.1 and told her about the
situation. I have questioned the Respondent No.1 why she was not stopping
the kid from damaging the laptop. The kid started saying he hates the
petitioner. Somebody sitting next to the laptop exited the meeting. It was
evident the kid was being provoked. The Respondent No.1 argued with me
when I asked her not to move the laptop to bedroom as the kid was not in good
mood today. The petitioner intervened and expressed his anguish and
requested that the meeting should not be used as playground for some agenda.
The meeting lasted for one hour. I have ended session as per Honb’le Family
Court’s order.”
10. The next violation pointed out by the learned counsel was that, on
23.04.2023, the child was not in the frame. The respondent did not answer to
any of the requests of the Advocate Commissioner to connect the video call.
The report of the Advocate Commissioner on the said date would disclose that:
“It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondents joined meeting on
time and the meeting commenced at 11 am as per schedule. The Petitioner and
kid interacted for 2 minutes. The kid started playing on floor. Suddenly
Reyansh told today is not that great and closed the laptop. After 9 minutes the
kid logged out of session. The Petitioner expressed his anguish about the
behavior of the kid. I have informed the Petitioner that I have being trying to
reach out the Respondent’s counsel through phone. The Respondent logged in
after 13 minutes and Reyansh was seen playing on the floor. The Petitioner
shared old videos of Reyansh dancing. Reyansh logged out of the meeting
again. The Petitioner was very upset about how the session was proceeding.
The Petitioner told that it is the duty of Respondent No.1 to train and prepare
the kid to participate in the visitation. For the next 20 minutes there was no
response from the Respondents side. The video was turned off and they still
12
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023logged in the meeting. The Petitioner questioned me as to what I was doing as
the Respondents were exhibiting this kind of behavior. I explained the
Petitioner that I am helpless when Respondent does not comply to my
instructions. The Petitioner said the parental alienation is happening with him.
The video was turned off and there was no response from the Respondent
No.1. I called the counsel for respondent No.1. I told her everything that has
happened so far. The respondents counsel promised me that this kind of
behavior of the Respondents will not happen again, I have ended session after
one hour as per Honb’le Family Court’s order.
11. The violation pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
30.04.2023 was that the respondent disobeyed the orders of the Court and
started video conference for name sake. The child was not even present for two
minutes. The Advocate Commissioner instructed the respondent to have the
child in the frame. But the same was violated by the respondent. The report of
the Advocate Commissioner on the above date would disclose that:
“It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondents joined meeting on
time and the meeting commenced at 11 am. There was no response from the
Respondent’s. It is further submitted that Master Reyansh voice could be heard
from another room. The Petitioner was patiently waiting for the kid to appear.
After 23 minutes, I spoke to the Petitioner and told him about the status of the
meeting. After 27 minutes the kid appeared in front of the Laptop. He was
there for less than a minute and left. The Petitioner shared some videos to grab
the attention of the kid. The kid was holding a battery in his hand. Reyansh
left the screen and video was turned off. Till the end of the session Reyansh
did not appear again. It is observed that someone was sitting next to the laptop
and turning off the video. The Petitioner complained that the meeting was
disturbed deliberately. I have ended session after one hour. The meeting
lasted for one hour as per Hon’ble Family Courts Order.”
13
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
12. The next violation pointed out was on 07.05.2023 stating that the child
was not at all present for the entire meeting. The report of the Advocate
Commission on the said date was as such:
“It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondents joined meeting on
time and the meeting commenced at 11 am. The kid did not join the meeting.
His voice could be heard from other room. I have called out the Respondent
No.1 multiple times but there was no response. The Petitioner expressed his
anguish regarding the issues faced in the meeting. The kid was not seen at all.
The meeting lasted for one hour as per Hon’ble Family Courts Order.”
13. The next violation was stated to be on 14.05.2023, wherein it was
reported that the child was present only for a few minutes and the only
interaction was the abuses hurled by the child to the father as someone was
teaching him the same. The report of the Advocate Commissioner on the said
date is as follows:
“It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondents joined meeting on
time and the meeting commenced at 11 am. The kid appeared in front of the
laptop after 12 minutes and started speaking against the Petitioner saying that
the Petitioner as online Dater and called “ass”. I have intervened and spoke to
the kid about the toys. It is clearly observed that kid was taught how to talk by
the person sitting next to the Laptop. The kid again appeared in front of the
laptop after 34 minutes and started talking something. I told to the kid that
Petitioner was his father and he loves him that’s why he is on the laptop. I have
called out the Respondent No.1 multiple times for helping out the kid to
Interact but there was no reply at all. I have ended the session, the meeting
lasted for one hour as per Hon’ble Family Courts Order.
14
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023It is further submitted to this Hon’ble court that till date more than 60 meeting
sessions were conducted but the child doesn’t know the name of the Petitioner
properly. It is further submitted that the kid never addressed the Petitioner by
his name or as papa and dad. Since last year after Petitioner has provided
laptop to kid the bond between petitioner and Reyansh was slightly better. But
still in many scenarios the child looks for cues from the Respondent No.1. It is
evident that Master Reyansh mainly listens to Respondent No.1. The kid
abuses his father i.e. the Petitioner many times. It is clearly evident and
recorded in the video that the Respondent No.1 never corrected the child
whenever the child calls the petitioner by a different name or abuses him. It is
further submitted that; the Petitioner’s counsel informed me that the Hon’ble
Family court has strictly instructed the Respondent No.1. to follow the courts
orders and cooperate for meeting. It is further submitted that the Respondent
No.1 never asked the child to talk to the petitioner. She would only ask to sit
in front of laptop, though she is next to the laptop and can clearly hear all the
conversation that is going on between the petitioner and child. The
Respondent No.1 on many occasions does not respond when she was called
out by the Advocate Commissioner. Respondent No.1 at the best only sees that
the meeting lasts for one hour and takes proper care that Reyansh is in frame
of laptop i.e. whether the kid is visible to Petitioner or not. The Respondent’s
role in assisting to develop a father-child relationship between Petitioner and
Reyansh during the online visitation meeting is still NIL. In most of the
sessions, the meeting ends from Respondent’s side by not saying proper bye to
petitioner but by only closing the lid of the laptop. It is further submitted that
the Respondent No.1 on last visitation closed the laptop while Reyansh was
standing in front of it. This indicates that Respondent No.1 is not at all
interested in online visitation and on many instances Respondent No.1 never
responds to Advocate Commissioner’s requests or plea during the meeting. I
pray this Hon’ble court to counsel the Respondent No.1 about the interaction
that has to be done between with Petitioner and child during the course of
these online visitations. I further pray the Hon’ble court to counsel the
Respondent No.1 as to how to develop father child bond as that would help
child a lot while interacting with his father i.e. the Petitioner herein. It is
15
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023further submitted that all the above information was given to Respondent
No.1’s counsel. The counsel for the Respondent tried to explain everything to
Respondent No.1 but there was no improvement seen during the online
visitation meetings. The Petitioner witnessed un-parliamentary language from
the child. It is heart breaking for any father if his child insults him. The
Petitioner expressed his anguish and complained that parental alienation is
happening with him. It is further submitted to this Hon’ble court that inspite of
mentioning every time in the notice the Respondent No.1 still doesn’t put toys
which the Petitioner gave to the kid during the session. This makes child feel
bored and he cannot interact or play with the petitioner properly. Both the
Petitioner and Respondents counsels communicated with their clients and
accordingly did their best to see that the online visitation meetings went on
properly. The Meeting ID, password and notices were sent to Respondent on
her mobile number and through e-mail to the petitioner. He received all the
notices via his e-mail i.e. [email protected] and the Respondent
No.1 received all her notices to her e-mail i.e. [email protected]. I
am herewith submitting this report and copies recordings of online visitations
in DVDs with both the counsels of respondent and petitioner and this Hon’ble
Family Court on 29.04.2023.”
14. It was further submitted that the petitioner travelled from India to
Netherlands on 20.05.2023 and his travel to Netherlands was informed to the
respondent two days in advance. It was further submitted that an out of order
was moved before the Court for ongoing disobedience and the respondent
submitted contradictory and inconsistent submissions through her counsel
stating that the meetings were not happening, as the child got heat stroke and on
asking to produce the child, it was submitted that he was in summer camp. The
Family Court, Judge asked for the presence of the child to examine the child.
16
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
15. It was further submitted that the child was produced before the learned
Judge, Family Court and the learned Judge, Family Court observed that the
child’s behavior was not normal.
16. On 02.06.2023, the petitioner sought the indulgence of the Court for
ongoing violation and filed the contempt petition. The Family Court gave oral
orders on 14.06.2023 to produce the child on 16.06.2023 at 02:30 PM, but the
said orders of the Court were also disobeyed. It was further submitted that the
petitioner came to India for a period of one month in June-July, 2023 and the
petitioner was only given one meeting of 30 minutes on 17.06.2023 that too on
strong indulgence of the Family Court for compliance of the orders. On
25.06.2023, the petitioner joined the meeting from Netherlands but the
respondent refused to comply any of the instructions of the Advocate
Commissioner and did not answer to his requests and not produced the child.
On 02.07.2023 also, the child was not produced. On 09.07.2023, the Advocate
Commissioner reported that when the respondent did not attend the meeting, he
called the respondent’s counsel and the counsel mentioned that her client was
not interested in participating in the online visitation and they were approaching
the High Court for modifying the order. It was further submitted that the child
was not produced for online meetings on 16.07.2023, 23.07.2023 and
30.07.2023 and a speaking order was passed by the Family Court on 06.08.2023
instructing the counsel for respondent to ensure that the orders were obeyed by
17
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
her client. It was further submitted that on 18.08.2023, the respondent remained
absent in Family Court even after strict instructions of the Court to comply all
the existing orders and failed to comply the same on 20.08.2023 and 03.09.2023
also. The Advocate Commissioner informed the respondent, but the respondent
kept claiming that she would not follow the access orders, as she had
approached the High Court by filing modification of the order in C.R.P.No.291
of 2022.
17. All these violations pointed out by the petitioner and the reports of the
Advocate Commissioner on the said dates would show that the respondent
blatantly violated the orders of this Court passed in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022 and
had denied the petitioner, access of visitation to the child.
18. The contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent about the
criminal cases filed by her against the petitioner cannot be a ground for
violating the orders of the Court. The FIRs or the charge sheet are not
conclusive proof of branding the petitioner as a criminal for denying access to
the child and for disobeying the orders of the Court on the pretext of the alleged
FIRs.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mr. Inaobi Singh Maibam v. Huidrom
Ningol Maibam Ongbi Omila 8 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.5025 of 2017
8
Criminal Appeal No.1568 of 2017, dated 04.09.2017
18
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
and the judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh in Nimish S. Agrawal v.
Smt. Rahi Agrawal9, and the High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumari v Dhiraj
and Others 10 held that criminal cases and allegations even of serious nature
unless proven to be true in due course of trial is not a bar on visitation rights and
custody of minor. The respondent’s repeated evasions of compliance of the
orders of the Court would show a blatant disregard for judicial authority
reflecting her unwillingness to co-operate with the legal process.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithavi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand
and Others (cited supra) by referring to its earlier judgment in Mohd. Iqbal
Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather [AIR 1994 SC 2252], held that:
“It was held that if a party is aggrieved by the order, he should
take prompt steps to invoke appellate proceedings and cannot
ignore the order and plead about the difficulties of
implementation at the time contempt proceedings are initiated.
If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its
opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is
neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either
approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke
jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of
the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or
wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the
Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing
with an application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse
beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other
9
FAM. No.18 of 2019 dated 11.05.2022
10
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5430
19
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what
should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It
cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give
additional direction or delete any direction. That would be
exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application
for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be
impermissible and indefensible.”
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that they
preferred modification of the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.291 of 2022
cannot be a ground for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. The
respondent need to comply the orders of this Court till they were modified, even
if there is justification in filing the petition for modification.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary,
Baitanik, a Registered Society v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable
Trust (cited supra) also while considering the case laws on the said point, by
referring to its earlier judgments, held that:
“13. Now, a look at case law on the point. In Sudhir Vasudeva
vs. M.George Ravishekaran [(2014) 3 SCC 373], a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court observed as under, in the context of
exercise of contempt jurisdiction: –
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as
well as this Court to punish for contempt is a
special and rare power available both under the
Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971……. The very nature of the power
casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the
same with the greatest of care and caution. This
is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a
20
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023process of self-determination of the sweep,
meaning and effect of the order in respect of
which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must
not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of
the order which is alleged to have been flouted
or enter into questions that have not been dealt
with or decided in the judgment or the order
violation of which is alleged. Only such
directions which are explicit in a judgment or
order or are plainly self-evident ought to be
taken into account for the purpose of
consideration as to whether there has been any
disobedience or willful violation of the same.
Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the
plea of equities be considered. The Courts must
also ensure that while considering a contempt
plea the power available to the Court in other
corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is
not trenched upon. No order or direction
supplemental to what has been already
expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the
contempt law; such an exercise is more
appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the
Court, as noticed above…..”
15. Significantly, the 2-Judge Bench had merely echoed the
affirmation of the legal position by another 2-Judge Bench of
this Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 622] The principle
that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep
the fruits of his contempt was reiterated therein. Reference was
made by the Bench to Mohammad Idris vs. Rustam Jehangir
Babuji [(1984) 4 SCC 216], wherein it was held that
undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that the
Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for
remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its
orders. Therefore, the principle that stands crystallized by these
judgments is that, in addition to punishing a contemnor for
21
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a
contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his
disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to
him.
23. Thus, in this Contempt Petition, this Court cannot travel beyond the four
corners of the order alleged to have flouted. As the report of the Advocate
Commissioner is supporting the contentions of the petitioner and his counsel
about the violations committed by the respondent, this Court deems it
appropriate to punish the respondent under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act for violations of orders of this Court and direct her to pay an amount
of Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by her on the above dates from
26.02.2023 onwards to till date. The respondent is also directed to furnish a
bond of Rs.2,00,000/- in favor of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security
for future compliance of the orders of this Court within a period of four (04)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If she fails to comply the
same, she is liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of six
months.
24. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed holding the respondent guilty
of the contempt of the orders of this Court and directing her to pay an amount of
Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by her on the above dates from
26.02.2023 onwards to till date. As the report of the Advocate Commissioner
would disclose that more than 60 sessions were conducted till date, the
22
Dr.GRR, J
cc_2350_2023
respondent-contemnor is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Twenty Thousand) for violating the orders passed by this Court and
the respondent is also directed to furnish a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- in favor of
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security for future compliance of the orders
of this Court within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. If she fails to comply the same, she is liable to be punished
with simple imprisonment for a period of six months. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G. RADHARANI, J
Date: 20th February, 2025
Nsk