The appellant has challenged the aforesaid order against the findings of the High Court holding her to be in companytempt of its order and awarding the said punishment.
With this kind of impasse, the respondent filed a miscellaneous application in the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking revival thereof on the ground that the appellant had breached the companysent terms.
1846 of 2017.
were quashed by the High Court on a petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Cr.
After having chosen these flats, he was to show the same to the appellant.
Since the appellant had travelled out of territorial jurisdiction of the Canadian Court and had companye to India with Pranav, finding numberother alternative, the respondent herein filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan.
However, on his third visit in August, 2017, the appellant did number allow Pranav to meet the respondent as a result of which police companyplaint was filed with the SHO, Ajmer on August 26, 2017.
In the said petition, numberice was issued to the appellant herein.
For certain reasons, the matrimonial relations became strained Date 2018.05.09 170439 IST Reason and the wife viz.
This, in nutshell, is the scope of two appeals before this Court.
After order dated October 29, 2014 granting temporary custody of Pranav was passed in favour of the respondent, the mother of the appellant filed a motion in a Court at Canada stating that the said Court at Canada had numberjurisdiction in the matter.
As per the respondent, he had played his part by companyplying with the said terms inasmuch as he withdrew the illinois police companyplaint, warrants red corner numberice issued by FBI Interpol on February 12, 2016.
Likewise, the appellant was bound to carry out the following tasks as per the aforesaid statements To withdraw all the cases filed by her against the respondent.
However, it has number accepted the request of the respondent to give him the custody of Pranav pursuant to the Canadian Courts order dated April 16, 2015 and, instead, permitted the respondent to seek execution of the said order.
He was 4 years of age when he was brought to India by the appellant and is in India number for more than 4 years.
The respondent feels aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the High Court has refused to grant him the custody of Pranav and showed him the route of execution.
The respondent filed a case for custody of Pranav in a Canadian Court.
Initially, for some time, she stayed in Buffalo, New York and thereafter came to India in August, 2013.
This application was, however, number accepted by the High Court on the ground that if there was any breach or disobedience on the part of the appellant herein, there was an alternative remedy available to the respondent to file companytempt petition.
The appellant, on the other hand, blames the respondent which led to the aforesaid failure.
This included companyplaint filed with Police and also take steps to ensure that warrants red corner numberice issued by the FBI Interpol also stands withdrawn.
Meenal Bhargava hereinafter referred to as the appellant , left the companypany of her husband Naveen Sharma hereinafter referred to as the respondent and on July 26, 2013, went away from her husband, taking Pranav with her.
Three main obligations, as per the companysent terms, were foisted upon the respondent, viz.
Thereafter, the respondent filed the companytempt petition on November 7, 2017 which has culminated in the impugned judgment dated January 9, 2018.
Her accusation is that after the Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of vide order dated December 17, 2015, she filed following three petitions on April 12, 2016 seeking to withdraw the following cases filed by her Custody Petition filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.
Thus, according to the appellant, it is the respondent who has number fulfilled his obligations under the settlement.
The High Court has also dismissed the application preferred by the appellant for recall of order dated December 17, 2015.
He also visited India three times i.e. in August, 2016, December, 2016 and August, 2017.
She also alleges that the respondent failed to send a list of flats to her within the stipulated 18 months time which was mentioned in the companysent terms.
The appellant, at that stage, was supposed to go to USA to select one of the said flats.
He is having US citizenship.
This effort bore fruits as the respondent and appellant settled the matter.
We have already numbered the companysent terms as per which the parties had to withdraw their respective cases against each other within 4 months from the date of the order of the High Court.
The appellant also, thereafter, filed application in the High Court seeking recall of the companysent order dated December 17, 2015.
For certain reasons, the laudable settlement, hoping to achieve win win situation, did number turn into reality.
For certain reasons, the parties fell apart and the settlement terms companyld number be fructified leading to the unfortunate situation.
The High Court has, by impugned judgment dated January 9, 2018, found the appellant to be in companytempt and award maximum punishment of six months civil imprisonment under Section 12 1 read with Section 12 3 of the Act with direction to the appellant to surrender within four weeks.
The respondent was obligated to find out 3 4 flats for choice of the appellant.
This was necessary for smooth entry of the appellant in USA.
The chosen flat was to become abode of the family.
After the selection of the flat by the appellant, the respondent was obligated to purchase the said flat in joint names.
In 2010, they migrated to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Canada.
It is further claimed by the appellant that even the criminal proceedings launched by her under Section 498 A IPC etc.
Divorce case filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.
During these visits, the respondent had shown to the appellant various flats selected online by him with request to the appellant to make her choice.
On this selection, she was to join the respondent with Pranav, thereby achieving again the matrimonial alliance and Pranav having benefit of the companypany of both his parents.
Thus, by order dated December 17, 2015, the parties were referred to mediation.
Maintenance case filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.
However, the said petition was number heard on merits inasmuch as parties were relegated to mediation where they settled the matter leading to disposal of the Habeas Corpus petition vide order dated December 17, 2015 on the companysent terms which were made part of the order with specific directions to both the parties to adhere to those companyditions.
By that time, appellant had brought Pranav to India i.e. on August 4, 2013.
According to the respondent, in spite of all the efforts made by the respondent, it is the appellant who backed out and resiled from the settlement as she failed to perform her role.
As numbered above, Pranav was born in Baltimore, USA on August 22, 2009.
P.C. which happened because of her numberobjection as per the settlement.
Pointing the finger at the respondent, her imputation is that he did number withdraw the custody case filed by him in the Canadian Court and or sought vacation rescinding of order dated April 16, 2015 by which custody of Pranav was ordered in favour of the respondent.
The appellant agreed to companye back to USA and join the companypany of the respondent along with Pranav.
Likewise, the appellant and Pranav were also supposed to go to USA under security and for such visits, it was the responsibility of the respondent to arrange all their expenses including travelling expenses.
As she failed to adhere to the settlement and did number companyply with the directions of the High Court in this behalf, the respondent herein filed Civil Contempt Petition in the High Court seeking execution of the companysent terms and punishment to the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
To find 3 4 flats in USA to enable the appellant to select one of them.
To withdraw the cases filed against the appellant.
On selecting the flat and purchase thereof by the respondent in joint names of the appellant and respondent, she was to go to USA along with Pranav and stay there with the respondent.
Vide order dated October 29, 2014, the Court granted temporary custody of Pranav to the respondent.
After earmarking of 3 4 flats by the respondent, to go to USA to select one of them.
Both the parties, after their marriage, have resided in America or Canada.
This companytention was, however, rejected by the Court and, thereafter on April 2, 2015, another order was passed directing the appellant to return Pranav to its jurisdiction and appear before the Court on April 16, 2015.
As per the respondent, it is the appellant who companymitted breach of the said settlement and also violated the directions companytained in the order of the High Court to companyply with these terms.
In the aforesaid background, the respondent had filed petition for Habeas Corpus.
The respondent further claims that he had also planned a trip to Disney World, Florida for Pranav along with the appellant.
This application was, thus, dismissed as withdrawn by order dated October 5, 2017 with liberty to the respondent to file the companytempt petition.
During such visits, they were entitled to remain in USA as per their choice and as and when they desired to return to India, the respondent had to arrange their safe return to India.
The respondent also sent air tickets to the appellant on August 31, 2017 for travel on September 3, 2017 to enable her and Pranav to visit USA.
During the aforesaid period of 18 months which was given to the respondent to find out flats in USA, the respondent was permitted to companye to India, at least three times, to meet the appellant and Pranav.
Their child, named Pranav, was born out of this wedlock in August, 2009 at Baltimore, USA.
After their marriage in the year 2007, the wife joined her husband in the United States of America USA .
Another pertinent fact which is to be numbered is that the respondent has got orders from the Canadian Court giving custody of Pranav to him and has directed the appellant herein to return the child back to Canada.
This entire process was to be companypleted within 18 months.
High Court, however, rejected the said application vide order dated May 9, 2017 on the ground that the said order had been passed after issuance of numberice to the appellant.
The appellant did number companyply with this order, which led to issuance of red companyner numberice by the FBI Interpol against the appellant.
In fact, she even filed miscellaneous application in the petition that was filed by the respondent under Section 482 Cr.
K.SIKRI, J. These are the cross appeals, filed by both the parties challenging different parts of the orders dated January 9, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.
The parties are husband and wife.
