ORDER
Bhalla, J.
1. This action arises out of the judgment dated 6-7-95 passed in the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 36152 of 1994 by which Shyam Narain Shartna was directed to hand over Km. Shakuntala to her father Shri Shambhoo Nath Singh.
2. The writ petition No. 36152 of 1994 was filed on behalf of Km. Shakuntala through her father Shambhoo Nath Singh, inter alia, indicating therein that he had engaged Shyam Narain Sharma as a private tutor to teach and guide the petitioner Km. Shakuntala at his residence. On the fateful day i.e. on 31-10-94. Shyam Narain Sharma had taken away the petitioner Km. Shakuntala to the market on the pretext that he would get certain books and other materials for preparation of her High School examination; when she did not turn back, F.I.R. was lodged in the police station in this connection. Since the girl was illegally detained by Shyam Narain Sharma, hence the writ petition was filed before this Court will” the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. After exchange of affidavits by both the parties in the aforesaid writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner the lather and brother of the girl were examined. They were cross – examined by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, neither respondent Shyam Narain Sharma himself came in the witness box nor he produced any oral evidence in support of his evidence. After hearing the parties, operative portion of the judgment was passed on 6-7-95 by issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing opposite party Shyam Narain Sharma to produce Km. Shakuntala. daughter of Shambhoo Nath Singh in this Court on 14-7-95 or to hand over the custody of Km. Shakuntala to her father before the said dale. Thereafter the reasons to the judgment were given.
3. Since respondent Shyam Narain Sharma failed to comply the order of this Court, hence, this Court was constrained to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and a charge was framed against him in his presence on 24-7-95 and certified copy of the charge was also given to him on the same day. Shyam Narain Sharma submitted his reply in four paragraphs lo the show cause notice, inter alia, mentioning therein that Km. Shakuntala had never remained in the custody of him, he does not know her whereabouts and after receiving the show cause notice he tried to find out her but all in vein.
4. As envisaged under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. no apology has been tendered by the contemnor Shyam Narain Sharma.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that contemnor Shyam Narain Sharma cannot produce Km. Shakunlala as she is not in his cusdoy. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case Raj Kiumar Dey and Ors. v. Tarapada Dey and Ors. . The main arguments relied upon by the learned counsel had figured in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment (supra).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. Dushyant
Somal v. Smt. Sushma Somal and Ors. and has pressed that respondent Shyam Narain Sharma deliberately beyond reasonable doubt has committed contempt of this Court by not producing Km. Shakuntala in this Court or not handing over to her father as she is under his illegal detention. In has been further argued that it has also been proved after full opportunity was afforded to Shyam Narain Sharma that Km. Shakuntala is under the illegal detention of him then there arc no reasons in not handing over Smt. Shakuntala to her father or by not producing her in this Court on 14-7-95.
7. I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the contemnor for the reason that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Km. Shakuntala is in the illegal detention of Shyam Narain Sharma, therefore, he is bound by the direction of this Court passed in the writ petition to produce her before this Court or to hand over to her father. The judgment cited by the learned counsel petitioner, Capt. Dushyant Somal v. Smt. Sushma Somal and Ors. (Supra) is applicable in this case.
8. In view of above discussion. I hold Shyam Narain Sharma is guilty of wilful & deliberate disobedience of the direction of this Court dated 6-7-95 by not handing over the detenu Km. Shakuntala to her father or to produce before this Court on the date fixed. Shyam Narain Sharma has committed contempt of this Court and is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution. Therefore, I hereby punish Shyam Narain Sharma son of Algoo. resident of Village Umarwal. P.S. Pipri. District Allahabad for a simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In lieu of non-remittal of fine, Shyam Narain Sharma will undergo further simple imprisonment of two months.