Recently, the Supreme Court of India imposed a fine of Rs 25 lakhs on NRI and six months imprisonment, for failing to bring back his minor son to India in terms of the orders passed by the top court from time to time and the undertaking given by him before the court to this effect.

The division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka held that the father was under an obligation to bring back his minor son to India on 1st July 2022. However, the conduct of the contemnor showed that he never had any intention of bringing the child back to India.

During a recent hearing, the bench found that the contemnor had not shown any signs of remorse and that he had scant respect for the orders of the court.

Further, the contemnor also refused the fact before the concerned Foreign Court, that he had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. He had also opposed the request for mirroring the order of the Supreme Court, which had resulted in the denial of the said request by the said Foreign Court. The said conduct of the contemnor amounted to interference with the administration of justice and obstructing the administration of justice, the court ruled.

The court thus concluded that the contemnor was guilty of both civil and criminal contempt.

“The contemnor never applied to this Court for a grant of extension of time to bring back the child. For the first time, by filing a counter affidavit to the contempt petition, he tried to seek an extension of time without giving any justification,” the court noted.

“He has defied assurance given to this Court that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court. As noted in paragraph 15 of the earlier order, the contemnor went to the extent of opposing the request for mirroring the order of this Court, which resulted in the denial of the said request by the concerned Foreign Court. In fact, due to the misrepresentation made by the contemnor, the Foreign Court has not honoured the principle of comity of Courts. The act of denying the fact that he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court and his conduct of opposing the request for the grant of mirroring order amounts to interference with the administration of justice and obstructing the administration of justice,” the bench said.