A daughter Sweta born on May 16, 1974 and a son Sandeep born on April 1, 1975 are the children of the marriage, there was estrangement between husband and wife and they appear to have been living separately since 1976.
A Writ was issued to the appellant directing him to produce the child before the Court on December 17, 1980, so that the custody of the child companyld be entrusted to the mother.
On an allegation that Sandeep was removed from her custody by her husband in September 1977, the wife moved an application under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of her minor son Sandeep.
Various preliminary objections were raised regarding the maintainability of the petition.
In answer to the Rule Nisi issued by the Court the appellant petitioner filed a companynter affidavit denying that he had ever kidnapped the child.
Despite the direction of the Court the appellant did number produce the child.
She obtained an ex parte order and pursuant to the order obtained by her, with the help of the Police, she recovered custody of her son Sandeep.
Special Leave Petition No.
Criminal Appeal No, 12 of 1981 has been filed against the order of the Delhi High Court companymitting the appellant to prison for companytempt of Court.
The High Court accepted the evidence of the wife and her mother and held that Sandeep had been unauthorisedly taken away from the lawful custody of his mother by his father and that he was being kept under illegal detention by the father.
Having searched in vain at various places for her son she finally filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Delhi High Court for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing her husband to produce her son.
Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant petitioner argued that the appellant ought number have been companymitted to prison for alleged companytempt of Court, when the direction of the Court that he should produce the child was impossible of obedience as the child was number in his custody.
On enquiry she was told about the kidnapping.
Dushyant Somal married Sushma Somal on May 10, 1973.
Dushyant Somal accompanied by three or four other persons came in a car and forcibly took away the child.
She found their mother shouting for help.
According to him the entire case had been fabricated to forestall any application by him under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking the custody of his son on the ground that he had companypleted five years and therefore, as father, he was entitled to the custody of the son.
After Sweta boarded the bus she came towards the place where her son was to board the bus.
According to the wife on October 27, 1980, at about 7 a.m. when Sandeep escorted by his grand mother Shanti Devi was waiting at the bus stop, Capt.
On the side of the wife, she examined herself and her mother.
He did number also choose to cross examine his wife and mother in law.
At that time Sushma Somal was helping her daughter to board a bus to go to School.
The Police registered a case under Section 363 Indian Penal Code against her husband.
The husband did number examine himself as a witness number did he examine anyone else on his side.
The appellant petitioner, in the Criminal Appeal and Special Leave petition, Capt.
The children were living with the mother.
1 of 1981 is directed against the order of the High Court in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The preliminary objections were over ruled.
As the appellant had denied the removal of the child, the High Court decided to examine witnesses.
She immediately rang up the Police Control Room and gave a report.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant was clearly guilty of companytempt of Court and accordingly directed him to be taken into custody and detained in a Civil Prison untill he produced the child in the Court.
