Disgorging Of Benefits Through 'Purging' Of Contempt Instils Public Confidence In Rule Of Law: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao has observed that the Court's power to preserve its magnanimity by ensuring compliance of its order is not a self-serving mechanism but to instill public confidence in the proper administration of justice. The rationale behind the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of...
The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao has observed that the Court's power to preserve its magnanimity by ensuring compliance of its order is not a self-serving mechanism but to instill public confidence in the proper administration of justice.
The rationale behind the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of the Court of law, since the image of the Court in the mind of the people cannot be tainted, the court said.
Factual Matrix:
A mother of three children (“Respondent No. 1/alleged contemnor”) had file a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking directions for the State Authorities to produce her children before the Court. She had also filed an I.A. for visitation rights. The petitioner in this case, and Respondent No. 5 in the Writ Petition, filed a Guardianship and Wards Original Petition (“GWOP”) for permanent custody of the three children. The Writ Petition and I.A. for visitation rights filed by the Respondent No.1/alleged contemnor was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2025.
The Court allowed the Respondent No.1/alleged contemnor to visit the three minor children on the weekends. It was her responsibility to pick and drop the children to the residence of the Respondent No. 5/Contempt Petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed off on the ground that the writ petitioner/ alleged contemnor can contest the proceedings initiated in the family court by Respondent No. 5/Contempt Petitioner.
On 21.06.2025 the Respondent No. 1/alleged contemnor took the children from the contempt petitioner's house, to Bhopal with her. A formal complaint was lodged by he contempt petitioner with the Jubilee Hill Police Station on the same day. Meanwhile the GWOP filed the contempt petitioner before the Family Court in Hyderabad is pending.
Submissions:
The counsel for the Respondent submitted that the contempt petitioner is not entitled to seek the return of the three minor children and to produce them in Court. This relief would travelled beyond the directions contained in the order dated 04.03.2025. Therefore, the Contempt Case is not maintainable.
Case Name: Shujahat Hussain v. Sidra Hussain Shujahat
Case Title: CONTEMPT CASE No. 1388 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sharad Sanghi Jubin Prasad, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Shaik Muhammad Abed, Advocate