DAVID JUDE versus HANNAH GRACE JUDE AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 30-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DAVID JUDE 
v. 
HANNAH GRACE JUDE AND ORS. 
JULY 30. 2003 
(M.B. SHAH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Litigation with regard to custody of 
child-Supreme Court granting interim custody to the mother-Permission to 
C take child abroad on condition of furnishing an undertaking to bring back the 
child to India before Family Court when required-Breach of undertaking/ 
direction/notice-Contempt petition-Held: the mother and grand-mother guilty 
of commilling contempt of Court as they played with the Court in not abiding 
with the undertaking-Thus, on account of their defiant and contemptuous 
allitude no lenient view could be taken-Order of conviction and sentence 
D passed.-Conslitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 129 and 142. 
Litigation arose between the applicant-husband and respondent-wife 
with regard to the custody of their child. This Court granted interim 
custody of the child to the wife with permission to take the child abroad 
on the condition of furnishing a written undertaking that she will appear 
E before Family Court in India as and when required. Meanwhile, she filed 
petition for divorce and custody of the child in U.S.A. Thereafter, she failed 
to appear before the Family Court. Court passed various orders but she 
remained absent. Hence the present contempt petition against her and her 
mother for violating the undertaking given by them before this Court and 
p order passed by this Court. 
Court issued notice in the contempt petition. Respondent No. 2-
child's grandmother appeared and she was directed to abide by the 
undertaking given to this Court. Respondent No.I did not appear and the 
matter was adjourned number of times. Thereafter notice was issued as 
G to why respondents should not be punished for contempt of court. Even 
then respondent No. l remained absent and the matter was repeatedly 
adjourned. Subsequently respondent No. l filed an affidavit stating that 
Court in U.S.A. has granted full custody of the child to her and her job 
precludes her from coming to India. Applicant-husband contended that 
H 
978 
DAVID .JUDE v. HANNAH GRACE .JUDE 
979 
breach of undertaking given before this Court by respondent No I amounts A 
not only to a civil contempt but also to criminal contempt; that this Court's 
jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution is not restricted 
by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Court may award even 
higher punishment than which is provided under the Act; and that one of 
the primary objects of a proceeding for contempt is to see that the order/ B 
undertaking which is violated by the contemnor is effectuated, thus, besides 
punishment, Court may issue such directions to restore the custody of the 
child to the applicant-husband. 
Respondent No. 2-child's grandmother contended that it is a fit case 
for showing mercy;. that she is aged about 65 years; that she has been C 
taking enough steps to secure the presence of respondent no. I and to abide 
by the undertaking given by her; and that in any case considering her age, 
sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed upon her. 
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court 
HELD: I. Respondent nos. I and 2 are guilty for committing 
contempt of this Court and it is not a fit case for showing mercy and not 
imposing sentence of imprisonment. (985-Fl 
D 
2.1. On facts, it is apparent that respondent no.I is well educated E 
and is serving in prestigious institution-World Bank. Respondents were 
given custody of the minor child on the condition of filing undertakings 
before this Court to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the 
Family Court and the respondents played with the Court, by giving 
unconditional undertaking and not abiding by it. Also the mother of 
respondent No. I has stated before this court that respondent No. I is now F 
not abiding by the instructions given by her to produce the child before 
this Court and the Family Court. Thus, the attitude of the contemnors is 
undoubtedly defiant and contemptuous. (986-B; 985-D-E; 985-DI 
2.2. It is also clear from the conduct of respondent no. I that she has 
no regard for the notices issued by this Court. If the notice issued by Apex 
Court of this land is wilfully disobeyed, it would send a wrong signal to 
everybody in the country. It is a sad experience that due regard is not 
shown even to the undertakings/order/notice issued. (985-E-FI 
G 
3. Respondent no I docs not deserve mercy because of her motivated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.