HOSHIAM SHAVAKSHA DOLIKUKA Vs. THRITY HOSHIE DOLIKUKA
LAWS(SC)-1982-8-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 04,1982

HOSHIAM SHAVAKSHA DOLIKUKA Appellant
VERSUS
THRITY HOSHIE DOLIKUKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Amarendra Nath Sen. J. - (1.) On the application made by the respondent who happened to be the wife of the appellant for committal of the appellant for contempt of court for violation of orders passed by the Bombay High Court, a Division Bench of the High Court for reasons recorded in the judgment delivered on 31-7-1981, found the appellant to be guilty and directed the appellant to be detained in the Civil jail for a period of 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of the said fine to undergo a further period of detention in jail for 3 weeks. Against the said judgment and order of the Bombay High Court the appellant has preferred the appeal under Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2.) This proceeding is indeed an off-shoot of the main proceeding between the appellant and the respondent in relation to the custody of the children. It is indeed unfortunate that in view of acrimonious disputes between the parties and bitter relationship between them, various proceedings have been taken by the parties from time to time. A decree for divorce has been finally passed. The main dispute centres around the question of the custody of the two children of the appellant and the respondent the son named Shiavux and the daughter called Gospi. As the son has reached the age of 16 years, the dispute as to the custody is now confined only to the daughter Gospi. Various proceedings had been taken by the parties in relation to the question of custody of the minor child and various orders have been passed by the High Court from time to time. The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court have also on a number of occasions interviewed the children. In the main appeal relating to the question of custody of the minor daughter we have set out the broad facts of this unfortunate case and the various orders which came to be passed.
(3.) In the present appeal, we are only concerned with the question whether the appellant had committed contempt of Court by violating the orders of the High Court dated 20-3-1981 and 13-5-1981. The order dated 20-3-1481 is to the following effect:- "Pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the order dated February 19, 1981 appealed against stayed so far as it relates to the minor Gospi alone. Until the St. Annes High Court in which the minor Gospi is at present studying closes for the summer vacation, the Respondent to be entitled to take the child to his residence on Thursdays from 9.00 a. m. till 8. 00 p. m. The Respondent who is present in Court, gives an undertaking through his advocate to return the child Gospi to the Appellant's residence each Thursday by 8.00 p. m. So far as the school vacation are concerned the appellant to keep the child Gospi with her for the first half of each vacation and the Respondent to keep the child for the second half of each vacation. The Respondent to take the child to his residence by 9.00 a. m. on the first day of the second half of each vacation, and to return the child by 8.00 p. m. on the last day of the second half of each vacation. The Respondent who as mentioned earlier is present in Court, through his advocate gives an undertaking to take the child Gospi to the Appellant's residence and leave her there by 8.00 p. m. on the last day of the second half of each vacation. We may record that we had seen the child Gospi in Chambers on March 10, 1981 and had found her to be an extremely bright and intelligent child. We may further record that the child stated that she did not have any aversion to spend the day with her father, namely, the Respondent, but was greatly apprehensive that if she did so she would not be allowed to go to her mother, namely, the Appellant, with whom she wanted to stay or that some application would be made to the Court on behalf of the Respondent for the purpose of not returning the child to the Appellant but to keep her with him. Notice of motion made absolute in terms of prayer (c) also, and the above directions with respect to the Respondent's access on Thursdays during the school terms and the order with respect to the sharing of school vacations also to apply if the child Gospi gets readmission in the Apostolic Carmel Convent High School from the next academic year for the school terms and vacations. If the child Gospi does not get readmission in the Apostolic Carmel Convent High School but continues in the St. Annes High School, the above direction with respect to the Respondent's access on Thursdays during the school term's and the sharing of vacations to other school terms and vacations. Costs of this Notice of Motion will be costs in the Appeal.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.