9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the applicant-husband to visit the child in USA after making prior arrangement with the wife. The brief facts of this case are that - applicant and respondent no.1 were married on 7.2.1989 at Hyderabad according to Christian rites. Soon after marriage, the couple left for America. On 2.5.1997, a son was born out of this wedlock. Because of strained relationship between the wife and husband, both started living separately. Wife approached the Circuit Court, Maryland in USA and got issued a protective order against the husband on condition that the child will not be taken out of the jurisdiction of that court. The wife, however, brought the child to India on 14.4.1998 and after keeping him in the care and custody of her mother responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the child to USA on condition that both the appellants file undertakings before this Court on or before 25th of September, 1998 to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Family Court and the 1st appellant will also file an undertaking to the effect that the 1st appellant will appear before the Family Court as and when required by the Family Court. If during the interregnum the respondent wants to visit the child in USA, he can do so after making prior arrangement with the 1st appellant to see the child. Passport of the child should be released on the filing of the undertaking. The impugned order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Family Court should dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order; 3. The wife is permitted to take interim custody of the minor child whenever she comes to Hyderabad and hand over the minor to the husband while she leaves the country; 4. The wife is not entitled to remove the custody of the minor child out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Hyderabad at any time; 5. The husband is directed not to handle the amounts lying in FDR of ₹ 5,00,000/- including the interest accrued thereon till the minor attains the age of majority. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents/ contemnors filed appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the husband moved this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents / con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court directed the concerned officer of Union of India to write a letter to the employer of respondent no.1 about the undertaking given before the Apex Court and breach of undertaking and also the fact that despite the service of notice, she was not remaining present before this Court. On 7th January, 2002, Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 and stated that he would file necessary reply. On 6th February, 2002 an order was passed to the effect that respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed breach of unconditional undertakings and notice was issued as to why they should not be punished for contempt of this Court. Relevant part of the said order is as under:- In our view, considering the unconditional un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ryland Circuit Court has granted full custody of the child to her in October, 2000 and that her job precludes her from being able to travel to India. She has further stated that even though she was unable to appear in person, she always retained a legal representative on each and every date of hearing of the case and submitted that taking into consideration her previous affidavits, petition against her be dismissed. Finally, in the affidavit which was tendered by her on 6th May, 2003, it is stated that petitioner had threatened her in past by saying that he is going to show her how he intends to use the Indian Courts to get back at her, and it is her belief that her husband is now using the system against her family. At the time of hearing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted above it is apparent that the attitude of the contemnors is without any doubt defiant and contemptuous. They 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. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have played with the Court, by giving unconditional undertakings for securing the custody of the child. It is true that respondent no.2, the mother of respondent no.1 has stated before this court that respondent no.1 is now not abiding by the instructions given by her to produce the child before this Court and the Family Court. Further, it is also clear from the conduct of respondent no.1 that she has no regard for the notices issued by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
