SANKALP SHARMA vs KRITIKA KAUSHIK

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1813/2023
SANKALP SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Mittal with Mr. Sanyam
Rastogi and Ms. Vishi Aggarwal,
Advocates.
(M): 8881113636
Email: concept.legals@gmail.com
versus

KRITIKA KAUSHIK ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal with Mr. Sanjay
Gupta, Mr. Ateev Mathur,
Mr. Rajnish Gaur, Mr. Amol Sharma,
Ms. Tulna Rampal and Mr. Jivesh
Sharma, Advocates.
Email: amol_sharma@sngpartners.in

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T
14.05.2024
MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-father alleging willful disobedience by the respondent-mother of the judgment dated 23rd March, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) 800/2023. By way of the said judgment, the Court had directed that the petitioner-father shall cooperate and give his consent to the respondent-mother to apply before the Embassy of USA for the purpose of obtaining a passport of their minor child, subject to certain conditions, as recorded in the said judgment. It was further directed that the respondent-mother shall travel back to USA along with the minor child, who shall not be removed from the said country, without permission of the Competent Courts in USA. Further, the petitioner-father shall be allowed to visit the child and vice versa. Since the respondent-mother has not taken the minor child to USA from India, the present contempt petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-father submits that in compliance of the judgment dated 23rd March, 2023, for the purposes of issuance of US passport of the minor son, the petitioner-father had duly shared his signed and notarized consent form with the respondent-mother. However, the respondent-mother deliberately delayed the process of issuance of passport of the minor son on one pretext or the other. Finally, the petitioner-father sent the consent form and the same was handed over to the respondent’s counsel.
2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner had sent several E-mails to the respondent asking her to reveal the date on which she was going to bring the minor child back to USA from India. However, instead of replying to the E-mails within a reasonable time, the respondent demanded unnecessary documents, which were actually not required by the US Embassy for issuance of a fresh passport. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent-mother had delayed the entire process of issuance of a fresh passport of the minor child and ultimately, caused delay in bringing the minor child back to USA.
2.2 It is submitted that the petitioner-father had sent an E-mail dated 6th November, 2023 to the respondent-mother and her counsel, stating that he had come to know that the US passport had been issued for the minor son in October-2023. Thus, the petitioner requested the respondent that since a new passport of the minor child had been issued, she should comply with the judgment dated 23rd March, 2023, and bring back the minor child to USA, as soon as possible. However, till date, the respondent has been delaying the matter and has avoided compliance of the judgment passed by this Court, as she is not interested to bring the minor child back to USA.
2.3 It is further submitted that the respondent herself has revealed that the minor child is suffering from autism, and he needs special care. Even then, the respondent has abandoned her child here in India with her parents and is studying in USA. The maternal grandparents of the minor child are senior citizens, who themselves are not physically capable to take care of the minor child.
2.4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-father has not been able to meet the child for a long time and he last met the child in the month of November, 2021. Despite several requests by the petitioner, the respondent has not even shown the face of the minor son to the petitioner, which denotes the highest degree of cruelty. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and is guilty of contempt for not taking the minor child back to USA.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner-father had made no efforts to meet the minor child. Despite the fact that the court had categorically recorded that the petitioner-father shall be allowed to visit the child, the petitioner took no initiative in that regard.
3.1 It is further submitted that the minor child has been living with the maternal grandparents. The petitioner has not cared to send any monetary relief for welfare and treatment of the child.
3.2 The petitioner himself gave only a limited consent for the purpose of one time travel of the minor child to USA. The passport issued to the minor child clearly states that the same is only valid for return to the United States before 22nd October, 2024. Thus, it is submitted that once the minor child travels to USA, it will not be possible for the minor child to come back to India. The petitioner has not cooperated in getting a normal passport for the minor child, who has been issued only a limited purpose passport, which is valid for a single time travel to USA.
3.3 It is submitted that the petitioner-father, who is currently residing in USA, had instituted a proceeding for divorce and for custody of the minor child on 18th August, 2022 in Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, being Case No. C-15-FM-22-004813. By order dated 30th August, 2023, the said Court in USA dismissed the claim of the petitioner-father for custody and visitation of the minor child. The condition that the child will not be removed from USA without the permission of a competent court in USA, has become redundant and infructuous for the reason that the petitioner-father has been declined the custody and visitation right of the child.
3.4 It is further submitted that on writing an E-mail to the US Embassy on 04th January, 2024, the respondent came to know on 02nd February, 2024 from the US Embassy that the petitioner-father had filed a complaint in the nature of International Parental Child Abduction (“IPCA”) case with the US Department of State, Office of Children Issues. It is in this background, the US Embassy had no option, but to issue a limited passport. In view of the aforesaid, the child will not be allowed to come back to India pending the said complaint.
3.5 Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Special Power of Attorney (“SPA”) executed by the petitioner in favour of his father, through whom, the present petition has been filed. It is submitted that the sole objective of the present petition is only to ensure that the minor child is taken to USA, which was not the purport of the judgment dated 23rd March, 2023 passed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner-father is not even aware about the child’s treatment, his doctor and as to how much expenses have been incurred on his treatment.
3.6 It is submitted that the petitioner has played mischief and has obstructed the administration of justice by creating a situation, which renders the respondent unable to comply with the judgment dated 23rd March, 2023.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
5. At the outset, this Court notes that by judgment dated 23rd March, 2023, passed in W.P. (C) No. 800/2023, the Court had issued certain directions for the purposes of obtaining passport for the minor child. The relevant portion of the said judgment, is extracted as below:-
“xxx xxx xxx
14. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. The purpose of the present writ petition was to obtain a passport for the petitioner. Since the father of the Petitioner has agreed to cooperate with the Petitioner’s mother for issuance of a US passport, subject to certain conditions as enumerated above, which are acceptable to the Petitioner’s mother, the following directions are issued:

(i) Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner shall communicate to the ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.3 all the required documents, which are to be executed by the Respondent No.3 within one week.

(ii) Upon the said documents including the statement of consent being received, the same shall be filled, signed and returned to the Petitioner for submission to the US Embassy.
(iii) Upon receiving of the documents including the statement of consent, the Petitioner is free to apply for a fresh passport.

(iv) The Petitioner shall travel to USA along with the child and shall not remove the child from USA, without permission of the competent courts in USA.

(v) The Respondent No.3 shall also be allowed to visit the child and vice versa.

15. Both parties shall abide by the orders passed by competent courts as also the present order.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

6. Reading of the aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the petitioner herein was required to cooperate with the respondent in obtaining the passport for the minor child. The aforesaid judgment envisaged issuance of a passport to the minor child, upon cooperation by the petitioner herein. However, the documents on record show that the minor child has been issued only a limited passport for one time travel to USA from India. This scenario was not even contemplated by the Court and no observation has been recorded by the Court in this regard. The noting on the passport of the minor child, i.e., Prakalp Sharma, reads as under:-
“This Passport is valid only for return to the United States before 22-Oct-2024.
It cannot be extended.
-This Passport is a replacement for a lost passport and expires on 22-Oct-2024. It cannot be extended.

xxx xxx xxx”
7. The reason for issuance of a limited one time travel passport for travelling to USA from India, has been detailed in the E-mail dated 20th February, 2024 issued by the US Embassy to the respondent, in the following terms:-
“On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 7:22 AM Prevent Abduction 1 wrote:
Hello Ms. Kaushik,
Your child is the subject of an International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) case filed with the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues. International Parental Child Abduction is the removal or retention of a child outside their country of habitual residence in breach of another parent or guardian’s custody rights. As with all children involved in IPCA cases filed with the Office of Children’s Issues, Prakalp has been enrolled in the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP).

The Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program allows parents to register their U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 in the Department’s Passport Lookout System. If a passport application is submitted for a child who is registered in CPIAP, the Department reviews and contacts/alerts the registering parent or parents and/or legal guardian(s) of an active passport application. This procedure provides registering parents advance warning of possible plans for international travel with the child. CPIAP does not restrict travel or “flag” a valid U.S. passport, but CPIAP is designed to prevent the issuance of a new passport without one’s knowledge or consent (depending on the custody status). Once a child is entered into CPIAP, he/she remains in the program until the age of 18 or until the parent who requested the child’s entry into the program requests in writing that the child be withdrawn from the program.

After a review of the application by our legal team, it was determined that a limited validity passport should be issued for Prakalp because he is the subject of a current, active IPCA case.

The original full validity passport that was issued initially was issued inadvertently. That is why Embassy New Delhi requested the return of Prakalp’s full validity passport, and issued Prakalp a new, limited validity passport.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

8. Thus, it transpires that an IPCA case has been filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent. In view of the limited passport issued to the minor child, it is clear that once the minor child travels to USA, he will not be able to travel back to India in the absence of relevant documents in his favour. These facts about complaint of abduction against the respondent were not even revealed to the Court at the time of passing of the judgment dated 23rd March, 2023.
9. Undisputedly, the sole purpose of filing the said petition, i.e., W.P. (C) No. 800/2023 by the respondent was to obtain a passport for the minor child, which was not being issued by the US Embassy in the absence of consent from the petitioner herein. Since, there are matrimonial disputes pending between the parties, in order to facilitate issuance of a passport to the minor child, certain directions were passed by the Court in terms of the conditions that were proposed by the petitioner herein, as a prerequisite to cooperate with the respondent, in obtaining passport of the minor child. One of the directions was that the child shall not be removed from USA, without permission of the competent Courts in USA. The said order was passed, since it had been submitted before the Court that proceedings were going on between the parties in USA. Relevant paragraph, noting the said submission, reads as under:-
“xxx xxx xxx
13. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is submitted that the proceedings are already going on between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 in the US. Currently, the child is staying with the maternal grandparents i.e. nana and nani because of the non-issuance of no objection by the Respondent No.3. It is submitted that if the Respondent No.3 is willing to issue a statement of consent and other required documents for issuance of the USA passport of the child, the Petitioner has no objection in abiding by the four conditions, which are recorded above, subject to orders of the competent courts in the US.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

10. This Court notes the submission of the parties that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein in US Court seeking custody of the minor child, already stands dismissed. Hence, as of date there are no proceedings which are pending in US Court between the parties qua the minor child.
11. This Court also notes the contents of the SPA issued by the petitioner in favour of his father, through whom the present petition has been filed, relevant portions of which, read as under:-
“xxx xxx xxx
5 – To get my son PRAKALP SHARMA (Who is an American Citizen) released from the wrongful and illegal confinement of Naresh Kaushik & Usha Rani Sharma (Kaushik) R/o 341/1 Shalimar Park, Bholanath Nagar, Delhi 110032, who are the grandparents of my son Prakalp Sharma and parents of my wife Mrs Kritika Kaushik, and, to get him repatriated from India to Maryland, USA.

xxx xxx xxx

10 – To take back the custody of my son PRAKALP SHARMA from the wrongful and illegal possession/custody of the parents of my wife Kritika Kaushik, Respondent/Respondents and from the Court, Police, or, Ministry of External Affairs of India on my behalf, and, to bring him back to Maryland USA, which is the permanent place of his natural habitat and where his Speech Therapy and other required medical tests/ check up are to be done by the state government of Maryland, USA, and, to hand over him to me here in Maryland USA, and, to take care of him in all manners required for his welfare.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Considering the factual matrix of the case as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that the petitioner has for all intents and purposes, made it impossible for the respondent to comply with the directions passed by this Court to travel to USA with the minor child.
13. This Court also rejects the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint in the form of IPCA lodged with the US Department of State, against the respondent shall be withdrawn, once the respondent travels to USA with the minor child. The passport of the minor child has been issued only for a limited purpose of one time travel from India to USA, with no provision for travelling back to India.
14. It may also be noted that the parties have already been granted divorce by an order dated 8th February, 2024 passed by a Court in USA.
15. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the writ petition had been filed only for the purpose of securing passport for the minor child and not for deciding any custody issue. The judgment dated 23rd March, 2023 in W.P.(C) 800/2023, had been passed only with a view to ensure that the petitioner herein cooperates with the respondent in obtaining a new passport for the minor child. It was in this context that the directions were passed by the Court, in consonance with the various prerequisites that were put forth by the petitioner for cooperating with the respondent in obtaining a new passport for the minor child. The Court had neither decided the issue regarding custody of the minor child, nor was the said issue pending before the said Court. Therefore, the issue as regards the legality of the continued presence of the minor child, and his stay in India, is not the subject matter of adjudication before this Court.
16. This Court accepts the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner himself has created circumstances, which has made it absolutely impossible for the respondent to take the minor child to USA. Besides, no time period was prescribed in the aforesaid judgment dated 23rd March, 2023 by which the respondent was required to travel to USA along with the minor child.
17. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he had filed a complaint in the nature of IPCA case with the US Department of State, Office of Children Issues, on account of which only a limited passport has been issued to the minor child. It would be relevant to consider the submission of the respondent in this regard, as stated in the reply filed before this Court, which reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

10. That at this stage, which is most important and relevant to place on record is that the Petitioner by then did not disclose to this Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner has filed a complaint with the International Parental Child Abduction with the US Department of State, Office of Children Issues. The Petitioner always gave an impression that he would be signing documents, which would enable the minor son of the Respondent to have a normal passport issued from the US Embassy and under these circumstances, the Respondent agreed to travel to USA along with the minor child.

xxx xxx xxx

15. That the Respondent was in a state of shock and despair on getting this limited passport, inasmuch as the understanding which was given to the Respondent by the Petitioner was for the issuance of normal passport and it is under these circumstances, the order was passed without providing for the time lines for the visit of the minor child to USA and for non-removal of child from USA without the permission of the US Courts. The condition that the child will not be removed from USA without permission of a competent Court in USA, in the respectful submission of the Petitioner has become redundant and infructuous for the reason that the Petitioner has been declined the custody and visitation right of the child, as explained hereinabove when the order dated 25/30.08.2023 was passed by the Courts in USA.

xxx xxx xxx

17. That to the shock and surprise of the Respondent, the US Embassy vide their mail dated 20.02.2024 informed the Respondent that the Petitioner herein has lodged a complaint with the International Parental Child Abduction with the US Department of State and it is in this background, the US Embassy has no option but to issue a limited passport. Copy of the mail dated 20.02.2024 issued by US Embassy is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-11. It is, therefore, apparent that the Petitioner has already lodged a complaint which he did not disclose to the Hon’ble Court when the order dated 23.03.2023 was passed. The Respondent is not having the date of the complaint and thus there are only two possibilities; one that the complaint with the International Parental Child Abduction with the US Department of State existed when the order dated 23.03.2023 was passed and another that the Petitioner made the complaint later. It is the respectful submission of the Respondent that in either of the scenarios, it is the Petitioner who has played the mischief and has obstructed the administration of justice. Without prejudice, it is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has created a situation, which renders the Respondent unable to comply with the order dated 23.03.2023. It may be noted that the Visa of the minor child has not been renewed on account of non-availability of the Passport, which led to further complications in return of the minor child to the USA as in the absence of a valid immigration arrival stamp on the limited passport issued to the minor child, it is difficult for the minor child to go back to USA and various other formalities with the Government of India as well as with the US Embassy are required to be fulfilled. The Petitioner is himself responsible for creating so many hindrances and has thus, obstructed the administration of justice.

xxx xxx xxx

Most importantly, the act of the Petitioner in filing the complaint before the International Parental Child Abduction with the US Department of State has totally rendered the Respondent helpless to take the child to USA inasmuch as what the Respondent is holding today is a limited passport and on account of the complaint pending with International Parental Child Abduction with the US Department of State, under no circumstances, the Respondent would be in a position to travel back. It is the respectful submission of the Respondent that it is the Petitioner who has obstructed the administration of justice and has created a circumstance so as to ensure that the Respondent is not in a position to take the child to USA.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

18. Considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is any willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent. Holding that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a civil contempt, but the element of willingness is indispensable, Supreme Court in the case of Anil Ratan Sarkar and Others Versus Hirak Ghosh and Others1, has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

14. Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman [(2001) 3 SCC 739] and as such we need not dilate thereon further as to the burden and standard of proof vis-à-vis the Contempt of Courts Act — suffice it to record that powers under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists no doubt as regards the initiation of the action being bona fide.

15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a “civil contempt” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 — the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation — the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

19. Likewise, it has been held in a catena of judgments that the effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. If two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes, as it involves a mental element. Thus, in the case of Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and Others Versus Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and Another2, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the “wilful” disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings.

9. We do not wish to reiterate the aforesaid settled principle of law except by quoting the reasoned decision of this Court in Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal [Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, (2021) 13 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 438] wherein the celebrated judgment in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj [Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 311] , has been quoted. The following paragraphs would govern the aforesaid principle : (Hukum Chand Deswal case [Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, (2021) 13 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 438] , SCC paras 20-21 & 25-27)

“20. At the outset, we must advert to the contours delineated by this Court for initiating civil contempt action in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj [Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 311] . In paras 11, 12 and 15 of the reported decision, this Court noted thus : (SCC pp. 209-11)

‘11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta [V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 202] , Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati [Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] , Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21] , Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] , Sahdeo v. State of U.P. [Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus [National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 481 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] .)

12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.” (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman [S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] , Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao [Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255] , Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana [Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332] , Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa [Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282] , Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1] , State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas [State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122] and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE [Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9 SCC 753].

***

15. It is well-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak [Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 497] and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd. [Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592] ]

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

20. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, no merit is found in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(MINI PUSHKARNA)
JUDGE
MAY 14, 2024
Ak/Au/C

1 (2002) 4 SCC 21
2 (2022) 1 SCC 101
—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————

CONT.CAS(C) 1813/2023 Page 1 of 16