ORDER
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J
1. These proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were initiated suo moto by this Court on the directions given by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.3581of 1995. That writ petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents i.e. (1) State of Andhra Pradesh, (2) T.H.V. Prasad Rao, (3)Mrs. T. Kamala, (4) T. Anjaneyulu and (5) T. Saraswati, to produce his minor daughter by name Apama Kumbhari, aged about 7 years by then and hand-over her custody to him. Respondents 2 and 3 are the maternal grand parents of the minor girl Apama. Respondent No.4 is her maternal uncle. Respondent No.5 is the wife of respondent No.4. Respondent herein (writ petitioner) is a Computer Software Engineer and an Australian citizen who at the relevant point of time was working for the State Bank of New South Wales, Sydney. He is a holder of Australian Passport bearing No.HO 17536.
The respondent’s wife Vijayalakshmi died in Hyderabad on 8-2-1995 on account of malignant tumor. Before her death, she filed a petition in the City Civil Court under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking a declaration that she be appointed as the Guardian of minor Apama Kumbhari. An interlocutory order was passed in IA No.570 of 1993 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court appointing Vijaya Lakshmi wife of the respondent as the guardian of the minor. While so, the respondent alleged in the writ petition that he filed a suit in the Family Court in Sydney for the guardianship and custody of his child Aparna and obtained an order on 27-9-1993 to the effect that he is the sole guardian. Respondent herein filed an appeal – CMANo.1018 of 1994 questioning the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge in the IA aforementioned. While so, after the death of respondent’s wife – Vijayalakshmi, her parents, brother and sister-in-law filed OP No. 185 of 1995 in the City Civil Court praying that one of them may be appointed as guardian of minor Aparna and an interlocutory order was passed by the Court restraining the respondent herein in proceeding in any manner to obtain the custody of minor daughter pending disposal of the OP Challenging the legality of that order, Writ Petition No.3581 of 1995 was filed on 6-3-1995. This Court directed respondents 2 to 5 in the writ petition to produce the minor girl before the Court on 8-3-1995 and proceedings were held in camera on 8-3-1995 on that day, the statement of minor girl was recorded and after discussing with the issue of custody of the minor girl with the writ petitioner as well as with the Counsel on both sides and keeping in view the desire expressed by minor girl – Aparna to be with her father, the Court allowed the respondent – writ petitioner to have the custody of his daughter till 13-3-1995 and he was directed to produce the minor girl at 10,30 a.m. On 13-3-1995 before the Court for further hearing. When doubts were expressed by the grand parents of the minor that the writ petitioner may not turn up on that day, the respondent specifically
assured the learned Judges that he would definitely attend the Court on that day and in proof of his bona fides, he offered to surrender his passport and that of the minor Aparna bearing Nos.HO 17356 and K2772964 respectively. The passports were ordered to be kept in the custody of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. On 13-3-1995, the respondent failed to appear before the Court with the minor as per his undertaking. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the respondent went to perform the obsequies of his wife and he could not return immediately for want of Air tickets. The case was then posted to 15-3-1995. On 15-3-1995, the Counsel for the respondent reported “no instructions”. At the instance of the Court, the learned Counsel filed a detailed affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he had to report “no instructions” and withdraw from the case. The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to inform the Australian High Commissioner, New Delhi not to issue any duplicate passports to the respondent and the minor girl Aparna. The Registrar was also directed to inform the police authorities at Bombay, Madras, Delhi and Calcutta not to permit fee respondent and minor girl to leave the country. The Registrar communicated the orders through Fax message. From the affidavit filed by the Advocate who represented the respondent at one stage, it transpires that the respondent reached Sydney by 17-3-1995 and a call was made to his Counsel from there. While dismissing the writ petition and the CMA filed by the respondent, the Division Bench of this Court made certain observations and gave certain directions. The Court expressed the prima facie view that the respondent had committed an offence punishable under Section 363, IPC which is an extradition offence within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Extradition Act. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court was directed to lodge a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the respondent for having committed the offence under Section 363 of IPC. It was also observed by the learned
Judges that the respondent having failed to appear before the Court on 13-3-1995 along with the minor in breach of the solemn undertaking given by him and left to Australia in violation of the order passed by this Court on 8-3-1995, he committed ‘criminal contempt’ within the meaning of Sections 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Judges therefore deemed it fit to take suo moto cognizance of the contempt committed by the respondent. The ultimate directions given in the Judgment on 14-4-1995 are as follows:
“The Registrar (Judicial) shall address a letter to the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, under Section 19(1) of the Extradition Act, 1962 requesting them to issue a requisition to the Australian High Commissioner in New Delhi or to the Government of Australia for the surrender of Srinivasa Rao Kumbhari with the minor Aparna Kumbhari for the purpose of:
(1) handing over the custody of the minor girl Aparna Kumbhari to her maternal grand parents;
(2) prosecution of Srinivas Rao Kumbhari in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for an offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code; and
(3) for further action by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against Srinivas Rao Kumbhari for criminal contempt, an offence punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act”.
2. Accordingly, this contempt case was registered and notice sent by registered post was returned un-served with an endorsement “The person is not working in that Office. Hence returned”. One of the respondents in the writ petition – T. Anjaneyulu took steps to send the notice to the respondent in the contempt case through an International courier service Agency. The statutory declaration given by the Licensed Commercial Agent who is empowered to effect service of any document
on any person in the State of New South Wales, shows that the respondent refused or at any rate evaded to receive the notice. Thereafter, we proceed on the basis that there was sufficient notice of this proceeding and he remained ex parte.
3. It appears that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Registrar of this Court have addressed letters to the State Government as well as to the Ministry of External Affairs to take steps for extradition of the respondent. The learned senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government has stated that the Australian High Commission was addressed in the matter, but the exact stage at which the move for extradition stands, is not known. It is not necessary for the purpose of this contempt case to direct our attention to that aspect.
4. As far as this contempt case is concerned, the respondent has felled to appear despite service of notice. The respondent acted in blatant violation of the direction given by this Court on the relevant dates mentioned above and also breached his undertaking that he would be present in the Court cm 13-3-1995 together with his minor daughter. He abruptly left the country taking the minor daughter with him evidently by obtaining duplicate passports by misrepresentation. The conduct of the respondent is nothing but contumacious that amounts to substantial interference with and obstruction to the administration of justice. He is guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act and is punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It does not matter whether he is within or outside the jurisdiction of this Court or that he is an Australian citizen. The contempt of Court was committed while the respondent was in this country and by his acts and deeds, he is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, we find him guilty of criminal contempt and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, as we feel that
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that maximum punishment is warranted. This sentence shall be executed whenever the respondent comes down to India or brought to India as a result of extradition proceedings or otherwise.
5. Copies of this order shall be sent to
(1) Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad
(2) Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Andhra Pradesh, (3) Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, (4) Australian High Commission, New Delhi. The Commissioner of Police shall send a report to this Court that this order has been duly taken note of and that appropriate steps will be taken at proper time.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government is directed to obtain necessary information from the Ministry of External Affairs as to the steps, if any, taken for extradition of the respondent in connection with the criminal complaint for the offence under Section 363, IPC pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and to place it before the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of two months. Thereafter, the case shall be posted before the Bench as a taken up writ petition to take stock of the progress as to the extradition of the respondent. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, disposed of.