The division judge bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the apex court in the Suo Motu contempt petition held that the egregious actions of civil and criminal contempt was committed by the contemnor and directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months for civil contempt of Court and six months for criminal contempt.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the contemnor married Smriti, an Indian citizen. At first, the couple stayed in Nairobi, Kenya but Smriti returned to India, and the couple was blessed with a son – Aditya. Thereafter, a guardianship petition was filed before the district court for declaration of legal guardianship. The petition was allowed. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the High Court. Then, Smriti challenged the high court’s order before the apex court.
Furthermore, the application was filed by smriti complaining of total and absolute disobedience of this Court’s Orders by Peter. Following the suo-moto notice for contempt of Court, this Court framed charges and issued notice to the contemnor. The matter was adjourned from time to time to give further opportunities to the contemnor.
Finally, by its judgment, this Court convicted the contemnor for having committed civil and criminal contempt of this Court’s orders. After that, when it was finally decided that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the contemnor to appear and explain his actions or to purge his conduct. However, he continued to be defiant & did not enter appearance personally or through counsel.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court relied upon the judgments titled Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others, Re: Vijay Kurle and Ors. Further, it was held that it is within the constitutional power of this Court to consider the contumacious acts of a contemnor and to punish him/her for the same. It is in exercise of such a power, unrestricted by the Contempt of Court Act that this Court had imposed a sentence of more than six months and also directed in some cases that the contemnor shall undergo rigorous imprisonment. The court held that the contemnor had deliberately, and with a clear design, made it appear as if he was willing to comply with the Judgment and direction of the Indian Courts.
The repeated statements and affidavits affirming to comply with the directions of this Court were given only to ensure that the custody of Aditya is given to him. The court is of the clear opinion that the contemnor had no intention to comply with the directions of the Court even while he gave the undertaking, filed solemn affidavit or even instructed his lawyer to so represent on his behalf.
The contemnor has falsely represented before the foreign jurisdiction that Indian Courts have not sought the consent of Aditya and that the decision of the Supreme Court of India is unenforceable. These acts clearly lower the authority of this Court. It was also indicated that the contemnor has interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice which is a clear case of criminal contempt.
CASE NAME- RE: PERRY KANSAGRA
CITATION- SUO-MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3 OF 2021
CORUM- Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
DATE- 03.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
