Delhi High Court Sentences UK-Based Businessman To Six Months' Imprisonment For Contempt In Child Maintenance Case; Directs CBI To Seek INTERPOL Red Corner Notice
The Court held the respondent's refusal to recognise Indian court jurisdiction and winding up of profitable companies to evade maintenance reflected wilful contempt; directed FRRO to arrest him on arrival in India.
Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has sentenced a UK-based businessman and Overseas Citizen of India to six months' simple imprisonment for wilful and deliberate contempt of court in failing to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1.40 lakhs per month ordered for his minor daughter, and has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to make an appropriate request to INTERPOL for issuance of a Red Corner Notice to locate, arrest and detain him.
The Court also directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office to intimate concerned police authorities to secure his arrest immediately upon arrival in India.
The Court found the respondent's conduct demonstrative of absolute disdain and disregard for due process and the sanctity of judicial proceedings, holding that his written declaration refusing to participate in Indian court proceedings was an affront to the Court and its majesty, and that such conduct made a mockery of the judicial process and struck at the very authority and dignity of the Court.
Justice Sachin Datta observed, “…It is simply not permissible for the respondent no. 1 to evade/ avoid these and other related matrimonial proceedings in which very serious allegations have been made. The complete evasion/avoidance of these proceedings by the respondent no. 1 especially in the context of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, exacerbates allegations of wilful disobedience of order/s passed by this Court. The conduct of the respondent no. 1 is demonstrative of absolute disdain and disregard of due process, and of the sanctity of these proceedings”.
“…respondent no. 1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of seven days”, it directed.
Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan appeared for the petitioner and Nidhi Raman, CGSC appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner separated from the respondent, a UK-based businessman who had acquired British citizenship while the marriage subsisted and holds an OCI card, who had ceased paying Rs. 1.40 lakhs per month in maintenance from January 2022, after paying it voluntarily till December 2021.
A Family Court order of October 2023 directed him to continue payments, which a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed in November 2023, directing payments in quarterly instalments. Despite these orders, the respondent paid only Rs. 30,000 against a directed Rs. 4 lakhs, citing alleged financial incapacity.
The Court found the financial incapacity claim wholly untenable, as evidence established that the respondent had initiated voluntary winding up of two of his UK companies, GSM Traders Limited and GSM Traders Property Company Limited, even while mediation proceedings were pending in India, despite those companies holding significant assets, including a commercial property in West Midlands sold for £3.25 lakhs, with a surplus of £1.44 lakhs remaining after discharge of all liabilities.
His income affidavit was found to have concealed multiple UK bank accounts, cryptocurrency/Bitcoin investments through Binance, details of companies, and income tax returns. The Court noted his annual turnover was reported in Birmingham newspapers as exceeding 2 million pounds.
In November 2024, the respondent sent an email to his lawyers expressly declaring he was withdrawing from the jurisdiction of Indian courts and would not participate in any legal proceedings in India. The Court held this declaration had no legal basis, was completely unmerited and constituted an aggravated affront to the Court.
Therefore, looking at the manner in which the respondent was attempting to evade the proceedings, the Bench observed, “…what is inexplicable and unacceptable is the outright refusal of the respondent no. 1 to participate in these proceedings. It is simply not permissible for the respondent no. 1 to evade/ avoid these and other related matrimonial proceedings in which very serious allegations have been made. The complete evasion/avoidance of these proceedings by the respondent no. 1 especially in the context of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, exacerbates allegations of wilful disobedience of order/s passed by this Court. The conduct of the respondent no. 1 is demonstrative of absolute disdain and disregard of due process, and of the sanctity of these proceedings”.
“The aforesaid facts and the conduct of respondent no. 1 clearly establish wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the aforementioned orders. The respondent no. 1 is in flagrant breach of, and has shown complete disregard for, the orders passed by the learned Family Court, the Division Bench of this Court, as well as this Court. His conduct has, in effect, made a mockery of the judicial process and strikes at the very authority and dignity of the Court”, the Bench further observed.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's directions in Paulami Apte & Anr. v. Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2018/2020, the Court found the INTERPOL Red Corner Notice mechanism appropriate. The CBI was also directed to issue a Diffusion under INTERPOL Rules for locating, tracing and apprehending the respondent.
Cause Title: S v. T (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5225)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate, Prashant Mendiratta, Asmita, Kirti Mewar and Arjun Gaur, Advocates.
Respondent: Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Rajni Gupta, SPP, Arnav Mittal, Akash Mishra, Rajni Gupta, SPP and Shivender Gupta, Advocates.