Act Of Purging An Essential Facet Of Contempt Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court Directs Contemnor Mother To Return Custody Of Children

The Telangana High Court while reiterating that the act of purging is an essential facet of contempt jurisdiction has directed a Contemnor mother to return custody of children to the father whom she tricked it out of.

The Court was considering a Contempt Case wherein it was alleged the mother took away the custody of the children from father in violation of a Court Order that only granted her visitation rights.

The division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed, "....The act of purging has been recognised as an essential facet of contempt jurisdiction where the contemnor is called upon to expiate its guilt before facing the Court: Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali ((2001) 8 SCC 650). The act of undoing the wrong is borne out of equity where the contumacious conduct must first be wiped clean by the contemnor. In essence, the contemnor can only contest the contempt on a clean slate. The necessity of purging on the part of the contemnor has been reiterated by the Courts in several cases."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sharad Sanghi while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Shaik Muhammad Abed.

Facts of the Case

The Writ Court had permitted the Contemnor to visit the three minor children on every Saturday and Sunday and made her responsible for picking up and dropping off the children to the residence of the Contempt Petitioner (Husband) within the time frame directed. It was alleged that the Contemnor took the children from the Contempt Petitioner’s house in Hyderabad on her own. The Contemnor didn't dispute the facts and rather in the Counter stated that the Children are currently in her custody and have been enrolled in a school in Bhopal. The counter though further alleged that the Contempt Petitioner ill-treated the alleged Contemnor, neglected the minor children and voluntarily handed the children over to the alleged Contemnor’s custody.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that before entering into the merits of the rival contentions on the admitted violation of the order, the alleged Contemnor should first be directed to return the three minor children to the Petitioner.

"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 instills 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: Murray & Co. Vs. Ashok Kr. Newatia ((2000) 2 SCC 367)," the Court observed.

It stressed that the object of the discipline enforced by the Court in matters of compliance is not only to vindicate the dignity of the Court but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.

"Any interference with the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and is punishable as contempt of Court. If a party is conscious and aware of the consequences but acts in violation nonetheless, the disobedience can be taken as willful: Balwantbhai Sombhai Bhandar Vs. Hiralal Sombhai Contractor (2023 SCC OnLine SC 113); Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya ((2004) 1 SCC 360)", the Court observed.

It thus reinforced that the alleged contemnor must first return the minor children to the petitioner before contesting the Contempt Case on merits.

"The act of contempt on the part of the respondent No.1 is, without a doubt, willful and deliberate. The respondent No.1/alleged contemnor has neither tendered any apology nor expressed any remorse for the disobedience. The respondent No.1’s only stand is of maintainability of the Contempt Case and the alleged incompetence of the direction prayed for by the contempt petitioner. The defiance shown by the respondent No.1 warrants appropriate directions. We are conscious of passing an order which exceeds the limits prescribed under section 12(1) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, the direction prayed for does not contravene the said provision", the Court observed.

Case No.: Contempt Case 1388 OF 2025

Click here to read/ download Order