Telangana High Court: In a contempt petition filed against the mother of three minor children who, in contempt of the order dated 4-3-2025, had flown off with her children from Hyderabad to Bhopal, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao, JJ, reiterated that the contemptuous conduct must be reversed or undone before contempt may be contested. The Court further held that alleged contemnor must first return the three kids to the contempt petitioner before contesting the contempt petition.
Background
The instant petition arose out of a writ petition filed by the alleged contemnor for a writ of Hebeas Corpus directing the State authorities to produce her three minor children before the Court. The alleged contemnor was a practicing Advocate in Bhopal who sought permanent custody of the three minor children residing in Hyderabad with the contempt petitioner. However, the Court, by order dated 4-3-2025, had dismissed her petition and granted her visitation rights for every Saturday and Sunday from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm whenever she was in Hyderabad. She was also responsible for picking up and dropping off the children to and from the residence of the Contempt petitioner.
On 21-6-2025, the alleged contemnor had taken the children from the contempt petitioner and flown them with her to Bhopal. The contempt petitioner had tried to contact the alleged contemnor as well as her parents but to no avail. The children were in the custody of the alleged contemnor and had been enrolled in a school in Bhopal. The alleged contemnor had contended that the contempt petitioner neglected the minor children and had voluntarily handed the children over to her.
The alleged contemnor had raised the issue of maintainability of the instant petition stating that the contempt petitioner was not entitled to return of the children since such relief would go beyond the directions contained in the order dated 4-3-2025.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the facts of disobedience/violation of the order dated 4-3-2025 were not contested by the alleged contemnor and therefore the Court had the authority to hear the contempt petition.
The Court further opined that before adjudicating on the merits of the contempt petition, it would be imperative to direct the alleged contemnor to return the three minor children to the contempt petitioner as the same would be in line with the requirement of purging the act of contempt.
The Court referred to the case of Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali, (2001) 8 SCC 650, and stated that the act of purging has been recognised as an essential facet of contempt jurisdiction where the contemnor is called upon to expiate his guilt before facing the Court.
The Court also quoted an excerpt from the case of Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia, (2000) 2 SCC 367 to elaborate upon the purpose of contempt jurisdiction
“The power of the Court to preserve its majesty by ensuring compliance of its orders is not a self-serving mechanism but rather one that instils public confidence in the proper administration of justice. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of the Courts of law since the image of Courts in the minds of the people as seats of justice cannot be distorted. The respect commanded by Courts of Law is the greatest guarantee of the democratic fabric of the society which cannot be undermined.”
The Court further noted that the conduct of the alleged contemnor necessitated that the minor children be restored to the same arrangement as on 4-3-2025 i.e., the alleged contemnor must undo the act of contempt before offering any explanation for the contemptuous conduct.
The Court further noted that the alleged contemnor had not filed any application for modification of the order dated 4-3-2025 and in the absence of any such application, taking the children from Hyderabad to Bhopal was a clear act of wilful disobedience of the order.
The Court opined that the alleged contemnor had tendered no apology, nor had she shown remorse for her actions. The Court stated that the defiance shown by the alleged contemnor warranted appropriate decisions and therefore the Court directed the alleged contemnor to return the three minor children to the contempt petitioner within 7 days.
[Sujahat Hussain v. Sidra Hussain Sujahat, Contempt Case No. 1388 of 2025, decided on 16-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sharad Sanghi Jubin Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shaik Muhammad Abed, Advocate
