In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has taken a stringent step against a man residing in the USA who has failed to comply with court orders pertaining to the payment of his son's fees. The bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued non-bailable warrants of arrest after the individual failed to appear despite repeated directives.

The case stems from a custody battle between an estranged couple concerning their son, who is currently enrolled at the University of California at San Diego, USA. The court had previously directed the man to pay the tuition fees and living expenses of his son, with a deadline set for December 5, 2023. Despite multiple opportunities, the individual, identified as the first respondent, failed to comply with the court's orders.

On December 15, 2023, the court directed the issuance of a notice to the first respondent, ordering him to appear personally on January 3, 2024. The court expressed its dissatisfaction with the individual's non-compliance, stating that he had breached the solemn undertaking to pay for his son's education expenses.

Given the continued non-appearance of the first respondent, the Supreme Court invoked Rule 11(1) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. The court, in its directive, emphasized the need for the Union Government to secure the presence of the individual to answer the charge of contempt of court, employing all necessary legal steps.

The Union Government has been tasked with ensuring the execution of the non-bailable warrants and taking appropriate measures to bring the first respondent to justice. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati clarified that the first respondent is a US citizen, correcting the earlier statement that mentioned him as the holder of an Indian Passport.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 4, 2024, indicating its commitment to resolving this matter promptly. During the previous proceedings, the court had considered the option of pursuing extradition proceedings if the individual continued to evade the directives.