APHCO10230222019 Ei!-= IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.CID.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 617 OF2019 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herel'n lthe High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent under Section 10 and 12 of Contempt of courts Act for wilfully disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court Dt 12.04.2019 and not complying with the directions given by the Honlble Court in W.P. No. 47795/2018. Between: N. Pavan Kumar, S/o N. Syamasundara Naidu, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Residing at 19-14-ll, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh u.Petitioner AND MaheswarI- RamI'neni, D/o R. Muniswamy Naidu, Hindu, aged about 38 years, ResI-ding at 5403 Sidonie Rose Ln, Katy, Texas -77494, U.S.A. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Pavan Kumar (Party in Person) Counsel for the Respondent: Dr. Colin Gonsalves, SenI-Or Counsel - appearing for Sri Zain Haider, Sri J. M. Najdu The Court made the following order: \`= APHCO10230222019 HRE lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SR[ JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAri RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I.C|D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 617/2019 Between : 1,N PAVAN KUMAR, S/O N. SYAMASUNDARA NAIDU, `AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU RESIDING AT 19-14-ll, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KESAVAYANAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH H.PETITIONER •AND 1.M RAMINEN-I, D/O R. MUNISWAMY NAIDU HINDU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT 5403 SIDONIE ROSE LN, KATY, TEXAS -77494, U.S.A. ...CONTEMNOR Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein' the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent under Section 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for willfully disobeying the orders of this Honlble court Dt 12.04.2019 and not complying with the directions given by the Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 47795/2018, in the interest of J-uStiCe, and pass c.3¥o9.J6¥7ToS3osI'; ® Counsel for the petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON' Counsel for the contemnor: 1.J`M NAIDU The Court made the following Order: (per Hon'ble SrI-Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri N. Pavan Kumar party-in-person and Dr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing for sri zain Haider for the respondent. 2. The petitioner and the respondent were married, ..on 18.ll.2010, in Tirupathi. They had a son, who is the center of the present dispute, on 02.10.2014. Both the petitioner and the respondent, after their marriage, had settled in Michigan State, U.S.A. Due to disputes between them, the petitioner filed a divorce petition in the circuit court of wayne Country, Family Division of the State of Machigan and divorce was granted, by an order, on 21.01.2016. This order also stipulated the manner in which the custody of the child is to be regulated. 3. ln June, 2017, the petitioner and the child -came down to India and stated lI-Ving in Tirupa{hi. The respondent, sought return of the child, by approaching the circuit court, in the state of Machigan and the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of w.p.No.30964 of ( --` I--A da5£ r~_` RRR,I & TCDS,I C.C.No.617 of2019 2018. The petitioner then filed F.C.O.P..No.110 of 2018 before the Family court-Gum-v Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, seeking a declaration that the petitioner is the lawful guardian, of the child, and for a further restraint on the respondent from interfering with his peaceful custody of the child. 4. Initially, the Ill Circuit Court, Mi`chigan, by an Order, dated 22.08.2018, directed the petitioner to appear along with the' minor child, on 18.09.2028, before the Court in Michigan. Subsequently, on 01.10.2018, the Ill Circuit Court, Michigan passed final orders declining v+ jurisdiction and dismissed the case of the respondent, for return of the child. 5. ln the course of the proceedings, in W.P,No.30964 of 2018, the respondent sought temporary custody of the child. This Court permitted such temporary custody from 14.09.2018 to 16.09.2018 with the condition that the respondent would deposit her passport and also file an affidavit not to take the child out of the J'uriSdiCtiOn Of the High Court. The respondent after obtaining temporary custody, had returned the child to the custody of the father, on 16.09.2018. 6. On -15.ll.2018, the, respondent, through her counsel, withdrew W.P.No.30964 of 2018, when the matter had come up for hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.47795 of 2018', I '/ ~ rf~ ( ` ``+ I r.-~~ ®a-. -_tTTSE r c.5#.,.J6f7T.:2DoS13J9 ® contending that the respondent, on 15.ll.2018, taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner, who had come down to Hyderabad for the hearing in W.P.No.30964 of 2018, had forcibly taken away the child from the house of the petitioner at TI-ruPathi and Went back tO the United States of America. The petitioner contended that the respondent had effectively kidnapped the child to the U.S.A. The petitioner`also stated that the respondent, after reaching u.s.A, had filed a temporary application before the Judicial District U.S Court (Texas), on-the basis of which the court in Texas, by an order, dated 28.ll.2018, had issued a` temporary ex parfe order by which the petitioner was excluded from possession or access to the minor child and that the petitioner had filed special appearance before the Texas Court. On the basis of these pleadings, the petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents therein to produce the child before the High Court and to return the child' to his habitual residence in Tirupathl', Andhra Pradesh. ~|---\ t -t+ 7. The respondent filed her counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondent, after setting out the places where she has been working from the year 2007, in U.S.A, and the details of her marriage with the petitioner, stated that the order of the circuit court in Michigan, dated 21.01.2016, granted joint custody of the child to the parties, until he attains the age of 18 years with the stipulation that parenting time shal`I ~'''-I ; . ( cG# ---`\ R.RR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 alternate on a three monthly basis. The respondent further stated that, on 18.05.2017, the petitioner informed her that his father was i[[ and that he wanted to take the child to India so that the child could spen'd 8 to 10 weeks with his father, after which the child would be brought back to the USA, The respondent i§ said to have agreed to this request. However, the petitioner refused {o bring the chj]d back to the U.S.A even after the said period was over. Due to this conduct, of the petitioner, the respondent had to file a complaint before the Federal Bureau of Investigation after which notice was issued by Interpol by treating the petitioner as an ol accused in a case of parental kidnapping. The main contention of the respondent, in the counter affidavit, was that the petitioner had violated the orders of the Circuit Court in Michigan, and as such she had come down to India and taken the child with her to U.S.A, after instructing her counsel to withdraw W.P.No.30964 of 2018. 8. This Court, by an order dated 12.04.2019, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent to produce the child before the Family Court at Tirupathi within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. After such production of the child, the Family Court was to decide the issue of interim custody of the child pending disposal of the main petition in FCOP/GWOP.No.110 of 2018 be for-e the Family Cc)urt- Gum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. *`-- -a .i. .I -x,`',.` . c.c#o,.J6f7T.:goS1,; ® 9. The respondent being aggrieved by the order of this Court, moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way of SLP,CrI.No.6436 of 2019. While the said Special Leave Petition was pending before the Court, the F.C.O.P came to be dismissed by the Family Court, Tirupathi. The Hon]ble Supreme Cou'rt, disposed of the Special Leave Petition, by observing that there is no question of production of the child before the Family Court, as the main petition itself had been dismissed. As a large part of the defense of the respondent, in the present contempt case, revolves around the directions and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme ®1 Court, in this order, the same is being extracted: llwe are now informed through the documents placed on record before us that the petition fI'[ed by the respondent at the. Tirupati Court has been dismissed though learned counsel for the respondent states that the appeal is' pending before the High Court. As the aforesaid subsequent act has overtaken the aspect of challenge before us and thus there is no question of production of the child before the' Family Court at Tirupat-I. The special leave petition is disposed Of accordingly." 10. The petitioner, filed the present Contempt Case, on 29.07.2019, contending that the Order Of the Court in W.P.No.47795 of 2018, dated 12.04.2019, had been violated by the respondent, who refused to produce the child before the Family Court, Tirupath'l. The tt-c-4? ng- ~| RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 respondent filed her counter affidavit, on 13.03.2020, stating that it was the petitioner who had wrongfully abducted the child to India in contravention of the judgment of the circuit court in Michigan and that the Family Court tat Tirupathi had dismissed FCOP.No.110 of 2018 on 20.12.2019 ahd that th'e HonJble Supreme Court had passed the order, extracted above, on 24.01.2020. The respondent further ,stated that the Family Court in Texas had already taken jurisdiction over the matter and the respondent had been joined as the sole conservator of the child while the petitioner was granted visitation rights. she contended that in the circumstances, the Contem,pt Case should be dismissed. ll. The petitioner filed a reply to the counter affidavit along with documents running into ab'out 290 pages. There was a lull after the filing of the reply by the petitioner on 14.04.2021. The matter underwent various adjournments until 13.07.2022. Thereafter, the matter came up before this court on 20.06.2025. The matter was adjourned on the following dates to enable the parties to make their submissions. The case was called on 20.06.2025, , 01.07.2025, 08.07.2025,14.07.2025, 16.07.20251 22.07.20251 28.07.2025, 29.07.2025I 04.08.20251 ll.08.2025 and 12.08.2025 when the matter was reserved for orders. \ \ -; .I.`~ I EE] EL iiE -- _I_Tffi r c.cr¥o9.J6¥7To:goSl,J9 ® 12. This Court also has to observe one aspect of the hearing. Large compilations of documents and judgments had been filed by both sides inathe following manner: The compilatI-OnS filed On behalf Of the Petitioner: 1. The petitioner filed a memo of judgment on 20.06.2025- consisting of 44 pages. 2. Memo ofaddi{ional documents filed on o1.07.2025 consisting of documents from page 2 to 16. 3. Judgments of the HonJble High Court of AIIahabad page`'27 to 58 and written submissions of ll pages along with copies of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from page ll to 24 file.d on 04.08.2025- 4. Written submissions of .petitioner filed on 14.08.2025 consisting of 7 pages. The compilations filed ton behalf of 1:he respondent: 1. Memo-Gum-written submissions filed on` o8.07.2025, consists of 23 pages of written submissions and copies of orders and other documents from page 24 to 45. I I / <_ Jl r=-I+~ 2. Memo filed on 14.07.2025 containing testimonials of residents of the U.S.A. ....`. ` RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 3. Memo of additional written submissions filed on 16.07.2025 consisting of written submissions in page 17 to 18 and copies of orders and other material from page 19 to 265. 4. Additional documents filed under.a memo on 17.07.2025 consisting of 43 pages. 5. Revised submissions of the respondent, under a memo dated 29.07.2025, consisting of 20 pages of revised submissions and copies of orders from page 21 to 59. `' 6. Memo of rebuttal of the written submissions filed by the petitioner dated ll.08.2025 consisting of 13 pages of written submissions. 7. Advance copies of final. submissions filed under a memo on 18.08.2025 consisting of 19 pages along with copies of judgments from page 20 to 150. lt is not clear as to whether all these papers have been filed for the purpose of assisting this Court or to delay the consideration of all these submissions. 13. The written submissions' and documents, mentioned above can be summarized a§ follows: ~-i -A Tii=_iE=E 10 c.5¥o,.J6f7T.:goS1,; ® The case of the petitioner is that the direction of this court, dated 12.04.2019, in W.P.No.47795 of 2018, requires the respondent to produce the child before the Family Court, Tirupa{hi in FCOP.No.110 of 2018. The refusal to produce the child before the Family Court amounts to contempt of court. Further, various steps taken by the respondent to obviate the orders of the Court and to ensure non complia-nce of the orders of the Court, would amount to aggravated contempt which requires to-be dealt with severely by-this Court. 14. The defense of the respondent, that the orders of the Hon;ble Supreme Court, had effectively obviated the orders of thl's Court, dated 12.04.2019, is not tenable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the ground that FCOP.No.110 of 2018 had been dismissed, had held that there was no need to produce the child before the Family Court. However, FCOP.NO.1`10 of 2018 came to be restored to file, in view of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in FCA.No.172 of 2019, dated 07.05.2020. ln this judgment, a Division Bench of this Court, had held that the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 24.O1.2020, is not an absolute bar, for further proceedings including production of the child. The judgment of this Court, had been challenged before the Hon'ble.Supreme Court, by way of Civil Appeal No.6363 of 2022. The HonJble Supreme Court by an order, dated o9.10.2023, had refused to interfere with the .t-* ~' I.4 I-` I rlife { -I ll •- RRR,J & TCDS,I C.C.No.617 of2019 impugned order in FCA.No.172 of 2019 and consequently the order of the Division Bench of this Court in FCA.No.172 of 2019 had merged into the order of the Hon]ble Supreme Court. ln view of these orders, the direction of this Court, in the order dated 12.04.2019 cannot be said to have been set aside or had become incapable of implementation. 15. These submissions, it is contended, are further fortified by the fact that a review filed against the order' of dismissal, dated o9.10.2023, in CI'Vil Appeal No.6363 of 2022 came to be dismissed, on 28.02.2024. a. 16. ln a further proceeding, in C.R.P.No.1119 and 1120 of2024, one of us, sitting single, had held that the respondent was bound to produce the ,child before the Family Court, in view of the binding directions of the Division Bench 'ln W.P.No.47795 of 2018, dated 12.04.2019. This order came to be challenged, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way `of S.L.P.Nos.21796-21797 of 2024. Both these S.L.Ps were dismissed, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on ll.ll.202-4. In that view of the matter also, it would have to be held that'the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme `Court in the order, dated 20.01.2020, in s.L.P.(Crl.).No.6436 of 2019 would' not in any manner set as'lde the order of this Court, dated 12.04.2019. \ I +....- _ I.T|r i-. . \ -` --_ _- c,c#o'.J6f7To:goS1,J9 ® 12 17. The contention of the respondent that the best interest of the child would be served, by allowing the child to remain in the U.S.A and` that it would be against the'interest of the child, to be brought back to Tirupathi is misplaced. The question before this Court is the violation of the orders of this Court,' by the respondent. Further, the production of the child', in the Family Court, Tirupathi, is for the purpose of deciding the very same issue as to whether it would serve the interest of the child to continue to reside in the, u.S.A or in Tirup-athi. Apart 'from this, the question+ of the respondent having forcefully taken away the child, from the lawful custody of the petitioner, requires to be rectified, by the child being produced in Tirupathi. 18. The responden't on the other hand contends as follows: 1. The Circuit Court, in Michigan-, had granted alternate parental custody, of three inonths each, 'to the petitioner and the respondent with a further stipulation that the child should not be taken out of the U.S.A. By bringing the child to Tirupathi, under a false pretext of illness of his father, the petitioner having violated the directions of the Court in Michigan cannot now tum around and claim legal custody of the child. cri.-..-.-.i The various testimonials, of the teachers of the child, as well as the testimonials of persons who had witnessed the domestic .-1Ta--..I ~ + t, iI 13 RRR,J & TCDS,I C.C.No.617 of2019 violence perpetrated by the petitioner, would clearly show that it is in the best interest of the child that he is allowed to remain 'ln the U.S.A in the custody of the respondent. 3. A case of contempt can be made out against the respondent, if there was willful disobedience of the orders of the court. There was no such willful disobedience. The Court in Texas, had already assumed jurisdiction, on the basis of the residence of the respondent and her' child. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot be forced to submit herself and her child to the jurisdiction of the Court in Tirupathi. Approaching the Texas Court, was a lawful exercise of a legal right, not a defiance of Indian courts. The remedy of approaching the-court in Texas, is a remedy available to the respondent, as she was a resident of Texas, since 2011. Further, the child cannot be brought {o India, on account of the orders of restraint, issued by the court in Texas. The respondentJs action of obtaining orders from a court was only for the purposes of obtaining clarity and protection for the child under the framework of law available, in the united states of America. Such actions, which were taken in good faith, cannot be equated to willful 'disobedience I of the orders of the court. \ . I \` `.; ,.~* >t I |' ``-I i-`,S JiJ_`I-,-_ 14 c.g#o7.J6f7To:goSl'J9 ® 4. The orders of the court, in Texas, prohibit the respondent from taking the child out of the United States of America. Any such action by the respondent, would constitute breach of law, in the jurisdiction, where the responden't resides and as such she cannot bring the chI'ld tO Tirupati. Any step taken by her would amount to disobeying the orders of this Court or the court in Texas. 5. The Respondent has consistently offered to participate in the custody proceedings before the family court in Tirupati, through video conference. As far as the production of the Child is *+ concerned, the same is not executable, in {lnormal circumstances". The.judgment in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godhal is relied upon for this proposition. 6. The orders. of the Hon'ble Supreme court, dated 20.01.2019, cannot-be treated to have worked themselves out and no order to the contrary can be passed by any other court, until and unless the Hon'ble Supreme Court, itself, vacates or modifies it's orders. ln the present case, the subsequent orders of this court, in F.C.A. No. 172 of 2019, cannot be treated to have superseded the earlier order of the Hon]ble-Supreme Court. *,-,,1J3003) ll SCC 1 .-- a ++ . t- Consideration of the Court: 15 RRR,J & TCDS,I C.C.No.617 of2019 19. The adm'ltted facts are that the joint custody of the child Was given to both the petitioner. and the respondent by the 'Courf in Michigan. The child was brought to India 'ln 2017. Thereafter, the respondent moved proceedings before the Court in Michigan as well as the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, with the contention that the petitioner had violated the directions of the Court in Michigan and that she was entitled to take the child back to the U.S.A. The respondent withdrew the writ petition, filed before this Court. The court |ln Michigan refused to exercise jurisdiction On her request, for a direction to the petitioner, to return the child to Michigan. 20. The further admitted fact, is that the Child Was in the Custody of the petitioner, on 15.ll.2018, when the child was taken away by the respondent, to the u.s.A. The petitioner contends that this Was done by moving the child, surreptitiously, from Tirupathi to Nepal and so On, t'll[ the respondent and child reached the U.S.A. 16 c.cRTNRo3.J6f7To:Post,J9 ® 21. The order of this Court, dated 12.04.2019, required the respondent to produce the child before the Family Court, Tirupathi in FCOP.No..ll.0 of 2018. The respondent has not complied with this direction. The respondent has defended her action on the following grounds: A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order, dated 24.Ol1.2020, in S.L.P.(Crl).No.6436 of 2019 had closed the said petition, with the observation that there -was no question of produ.ctioh of the child before the Family Court, Tirupathi. No subsequent order of this court, either in FCA No.172 of2019 orCRP Nos.1119 and.1120 of2024, can alter that order. The present proceeding cannot be continued, in the face of this direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. B. The welfare of the child has to be given priority and the dI'SIOCatiOn Of the Child from the U.S.A to Tirupathi after more than six years have elapsed and after the child has developed roots and is accustomed to live in U.S.A would be clearly against the interest of the child. The respondent has also raised other grounds which are set out above. C. There -must be willful d.isobedience of the orders of the court, `, 'to bring home` a charge of civil contempt. There is no such willful F '`-... Idisobedience, as the respondent, on account of,the orders of the court -*~ -± GjgiP-- ¢_r-ng r o | | -E= _ ) 17 RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 in Texas, is precluded from taking the child out of the United States. of America. N'e.ither can the action of the respondent approaching the court ,in Texas be treated as disrespecting the Indian courts. D. The Family Court in Tirupathi has nojurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioner and the child are united state citizens while the respondent is a permanent resident of TeX-as State. It iS only the Court in Texas which would have jurisdiction and the Family Court in Tirupathi has no jurisdiction since the child does not normally reside in India or within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Tirupathi. Section a+ 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act,1890 clearly s{i+pules .that it is only the Court where the child is ,normally resident, that would be competent to take up any dispute relating to custody of the child. Further, the Court in Texas has already adjusted on the question of custody of child in favour 'of the respondent and the same cannot be interfered with. E. The respondent relies on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nithya Anand Raghavan vs. State (NOT of Delhi)2 and somprabha Rana v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 to contend that a writ of Habeas Corpus to enforce directions given by a Foreign \t> rii 2 (2017) 8 SCC 454 3 2024 INSC 664 i . 18 c. gEo9.J6 f:7 To:Z}os1,gr Court or to take away custody of the child from the mother when such custody cannot be treated as illegal custody. 22. Before considering the other grounds of defense, it would be appropriate to consider the grounds of defense, B, D & E raised' by the respondent. 23. Under ground B, Dr.Colin Gonsalves, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent, has drawn the attention of this Court to various testimonials produced by the respondent as well as' the various judgments`.of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to contend, that the welfare of the child is the first and only issue that would be looked into by the Courts, while deciding .the custody or the production of the child. There is. no quarrel with this proposition and we wholeheartedly endorse, the principle, that the welfare of the child attains primacy in any consideration of grant of custody to either parent. ln that view of the matter, we do not propose to set out the testimonials or the judgments and submissions made by Dr. Colin Gonsalves as we are in agreement with him on principle. 24. Though on principle, we are in agreement with Dr. Colin Gonsalves, the question of wha't would serve the best interest of the child, are issues which- would be decided by the Family Court, on ct35C# h E=- n' > a. ` i 19 RRR,J & TCDS,I C.C.No.617 of2019 production of the child lbefore the Family Court in Tirupathi. Such production of the child, does not mean .that the child will, forever, remain in Tirupathi. This Court, after considering the very same issue, that the interests of the chl|ld should be given primacy, had passed the order, dated 12.04.2019. The order of this Court, dated 12.04.2019, is very clear and specific that, the question of interim custody of the child, pending final disposal of the petition, would be 'decided by the Family Court in Tirupathi, after the production of the child. ln such a situation, the contention of 'Dr. Co]in Gonsalves that the child cannot be produced before the Court in Tirupathi, as his interests are not being taken into account, cannot be accepted. The issue raised by Dr. Colin Gonsalves is an issue that would be answered by Family Court at Tirupathi, after hearing both Sides and after the child js produced before the family court Tirupathi. The issue, before this Court, is whether the orders of this Court have been complied or not. 25. -` The issue rais.ed in ground fD' relating to jurisdiction of the Court in Tirupathi and the effect of the judgment of the Courtin.Texas, are issues which would have -to be raised before the Family Court, Tirupathi. -ln fact, these issues have already been raised and came to be rejected by this Court in FCA.No.172 of 2019. The scope of the petition before this Court, is whether there has been violation of the ii=ii= 20 c. 5¥.,.J6 i, 'o:g.SIS directions of thI-S Court in W.P.No.47795 of 2018. The dispute regardi-ng the question of J-uriSdiCtiOn Of the Family Court, Tirupathi, or the effect of the judgment of the Court l'n Texas, are outside the scope of consideration in the present Contempt Case. As such this ground has to be rejected. 26. The issues raised in ground {E" relate to the jurisdiction of this Court, in issuing a Writ. of Habeas Corpus, for produ'ction of the child before the Family Court, Tirupathi. These are issues which were considered by this Court in W.P.No.47795 of 2018. In any event, the ®| said Order has become final and it WOuld not be open tO this Court to go into the question of whether that issue was appropriately decided by a Division Bench of this Court or not. 27. ,The issue, raised in ground No. A, above, as to whether the observation of the HonJble Supreme Court, would forever prohibit the production of the child, in Tirupathi requires to be considered. The details of the proceedings and the manner in which the child had been taken back to,the U.S.A, by-the respondent, have already been set out. The petitioner moved W.P.No.47795 of 2018, for production of the child and for restoration of custody. A Division Bench of this Court, after holding that the child had been forcibly taken away by the respondent, had not directed restoration of custody to the petitioner. Li], : r` r ../ i-xp!. `G= L+I ±JD 1 *== E- -'_\ 21 RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 The Division Bench, after noting the fact that FCOP.No.110 of 2018 was already pending before the Family Court, Tirupathi, regarding the question of custody of the child, had directed that the respondent should produce the child before.the Family Court which wo'uld then decide the question of interim custody and final custody of the child. 28. The respondent challenged this order, b|y way of s.L.P.(Crl.)No.6436 of 2019, filed on 23.07.2019. The Honlble Supreme Court, by an or.der, dated 29.07.2019, had stayed the ci'irection requiring the production of the child before the Family{Cour{, Tirupathi, On 24.01.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was informed that FCOP.No.110 of 2018 had' been dismissed and that an appeal against the said order -of dismissal was already pending before' this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after recording these facts, held that the subsequent dismissal of the petition by the Family Court, Tirupathi had overtaken the aspect of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, there would be no `question of production of child before the Family Court at Tirupathi. 29. The appeal filed against the order of dismissal of FCOP.No.110 of 2018, by the Family Court, Tirupathi came to be numbered as FCA.No.172 of 2019. This appeal was allowed on 22 C.C_No.617 of201 g_¥.,.J6f; I.: g.S1S 23.O9.2021. The issues that were raised in the Family Court appeal was whether the Family Court, Tirupathi had jurisdiction in view of the earlier orders of the Michigan Court. The Division Bench held that the Court in Tirupathi cannot decline jurisdiction on the ground that the child was brought to Tirupathi without the permission of the Michigan Court as the child had been brought to India with the con'sent of the respondent. 30. Another contention, which had come up before.the Division Bench, in the above appeal, was that the direction, in the order,!dated 12.04.2019,. in W.P.No.47795 of 2018, need not be followed, on account of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl).No.6436 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020. The Division Bench, dealt with this contention, in the following manner: {'lt is contehded by the respondent that 'the order in W.P.No.47795 of 2018 was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.6436 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore the direction in w.p.No.47795 of 2018 need not be followed. We cannot appreciate this argument. A perusal of the order dated 24.O1.2020 passed by the HonJble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (crI).No.6436/2019 would show that on 29.07.2019 stay was granted against the order in W.P.NO.47795 of 2018. Thereafter, on being informed that the F.C.O.P.No.110/2018 was dismissed by the Family Court, -\ . -__jng I+I -r -` ) 23 _i RRR,J & TCDS,I C.C.No.617 of2019 Tirupati and an appeal was pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the said order, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the aforesaid subsequent act has over taken the aspect -of the challenge before the supreme Court and thus there was no question of production of child before the Family Court at Tjrupati. With that observation Special Leave Petition w'as disposed of. lt should be noted that Hon'ble Apex Court Jlas not set aside the order in W.P.No.47795 of 2018 on merits. It was only held that the question of production of the child before the Family Court at Tirupati does not arise because of dismissal of F.C.O.P.No.110/2018 by the Family Court tat Tirupati'. Therefore, the respondent cannot contend that the order in W.P.No.47795 of 2018 can be ignored. The other contentions raised by the respondent are of not much significance. The decisiohs cited also will be no avail." 31. The direction, in W.P.No.7795 of 2018, referred to in the above order in .the Family Court Appeal, is the direction, to the respondent, to produce.the child before the Family Court at Tirupathi and for determination of interim and final custody, of the child. The Division Bench, in FCA.No,172 of 2019 had specifically considered the afor`esaid submission and had held that the direction in W.P.No.47795 of 2018 cannot be ignored and has to be followed. 32. Thisjudgment was c'hallenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which admitted the S.L.P filed by the respondent, and heard the matter aS a Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal . . .I •-/ (.. \t--_ I- -I '.xp I+1 c. 5¥.,.J6 f, T.:g.S1, S 24 No.6363 of 2022. The Hon]ble Supreme Court, passed an order, dated 09.10.2023, dI-SmiSSing the CivI|l Appeal in the following manner.I llln the given facts and circumstances of the case, we ultimately do not see any reason as to why we should interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Appeal stands dismissed." 33. The order of the Division Bench, in F.C.A.No.172 of2019, is deemed to have merged. into this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the order has been passed in a Civil Appeal and not in an-S,L.P. The judgment of the Hon'ble`<Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayainmed and Others vs. State of Kerala and another4 would apply in this case. Even if the argument 6f Dr. Gonsalves, that subsequent orders of this court, cannot take away the effect of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is to be accepted, the order of this court, in FCA No,172 of 2019, has merged into the order of the HonJb[e Supreme Court, in C.A.No. 6363 of 2022 and the said contention does not survive. 34. A further fact, which needs to be noted, is that the respondent moved' a review petition against the said order of dismissal. This review petition also came to be dismissed,'by an order, dated 28.02.2024, in the following manner': 4 (2000) 6 SCC 359 i ty}. dfi cz3e- b. A I+ - ) 25 RRR,I & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 tl Delay condoned. We have carefully perused the review petition as also the grounds in support thereof. ln our opinion, no case for review of the order dated 09.10.2023 is made out. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 35. In related proceedings, in CRP.Nos.1119 and 1120 of- 2024, this Court had held that the order of the Division Bench in FCA.No.172 of 2019, which had been affirmed in Civil Appeal No.6363 of 2022 made 'lt clear that the petitioner would have to comply with the directions of this Court, dated 12.04.2019, in W.P.No.47795 of 2018, The orders of this Court in CRP.Nos.1119 and 1120 of 2024 came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Suprem6 court by way of s.L.P.No.21796 and 21797 of ,2024. Both these S.L.Ps came to be dismissed. on ll.ll.2024. Dr. Colin Gonsalves, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that an order of dismissal, at the stage .of Special Leave Petition, would not result in the merger of the order of this court, and relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and another. There is no dispute that the order of this court did not merge into the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the fact remains that the earlier order, of the Division Bench, in FCA.No.172 of 2019 came to be affirmed by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal and consequently the order of the *` ` '\ +.-. I// ~t- -9 26 c. cREo3.J6 ¥7 To:goS1, ;6 Division Bench in FCA.No.172 of 2019 would have to be treated as merged into the order of the HonJble Supreme Court. ln these circumstances, it is clear that the respondent is bound to comply with the directions of this Court, dated 12.04.2019, in W.P.No.47795 of 2018, failing which, she would be guilty of contempt of court under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. 36. The case of the respondent is that, she had rightfully invoked the jurisdictI'On Of the COurt in Texas and, because of the orders of the court in Texas, is prohibited from taking the child out of the ui-lited States of America. The respondent further contends that the orders of this court cannot be llnormally implemented" and no contempt would arise, on non implementation of the orders of this court. lt is also contended that a case of contempt would ari;e only when there is wI'llful disobedience of the judgment and that benefit of doubt should be given to the contemnor where two equally consistent possibilities of contemnor having willfully disobeyed or disobeyed out of compulsion would have to be taken into account. 37. The respondent relies upon the following I-udgmentS for these propositl'ons: ` ~Th ly1 ts,I ` \ --__\ 27 RRR,J & TCDS,I C.C.No.T617 of2019 1. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha5 2. Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gula{i6 3. Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekeran7 4. R.N. Dey& Ors. V. Bhagyabati Pramanik& Ors.8 5. M/s. Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd. V. Ratan LaI Singh9 6. Sulthan Said lbrahim v. Prakasan & Ors.,10 7. Shankar Ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapatll 8. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd.,12 `. These judgments arise out of cases, where it is contended that the orders of the court could not be implemented, because of certain circumstances. Before going into the judgments, cited by the Learned senior Counsel .for the respondent, it is necessary to ascertain, the conduct of the respondent and whether such conduct was willful -disobedience of the orders of this court. 38. Section 2 (b ) of the Contempt of Courts Act, reads as follows: lThe Civil Contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decre.e, direction, order, Writ or 5(2003) ll SCC 1 6 (2001) 7 SCC 530 7 (2014) 3 SCC 8 (2000) 4 SCC 400 9 (1974) 2 SCC 453 10 2025 INSC 764 :: i.!3g3! 3cscc;9714 28 c. 5=NRo9.J6¥7 To€ goS1' l® other process of a Court or willful breach of undertaking given to a C'ourt." 39. The division bench, of this court, which passed the order, dated 12.4.2019, in W.P.No. 47795 of 2018, was informed, in the course of the hearing, that the respondent had approached the court in Texas and had obtained orders of custody, from that court. The division bench, after considering this fact and the manner in which the respondent had obtained custody of the child and the manner in which he was taken out and after noticing the judgments in V| Ravichandran (Dr.) v. Union of lndia13|, Kanika Goe[ vI State (NCT of Delhi)14., EIizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw15., Nithya Anand- Raghavan vs. State (NCT of Delhi)16, surya vadanan v. state of Tamil Nadu17., AIekhya Ya[amanchj[i v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others18|, prateek Gupta v. Shipli Gupta19 had held as follows: l'24. However, the record clearly shows that on the day when the writ petition was withdrawn, the boy was abducted from the lawful guardianship of his grandmother. lt is no doubt true that orders are passed by the Courts in U.S., but, at the same time, the Courts in India, while recognizing the custody of the boy with the father, granted interI'm Custody tO the father, meaning thereby, the boy is in lawful 1RA(2010) 1 SCC 174 14 (2018) 9 SCC 578 15 (1987) 1 SCC 42 16 (2017) 8 SCC 454 17 (2015) 5 SCC 450 18 2012 (4) ALD 748 |9 (2018) 2 SCC 309 f' E E-\ EEl -`` -* 29 RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.617 of2019 cus'tody of the father in India. Forcible taking away of the boy from the custody of his grandmother, is not permitted by any law or by any order passed by the Courts in U.S. In fact, there is no answer from the counsel when the Court posed a query as to how the mother came into custody of the boy on 15.ll.2018. since November 2018, the boy is in the custody of the mother and father has been visiting USA fighting out the lI-tigatiOn in the -Said COurfS, At the same time, the appropriate civil Court in India is also seized of the matter with regard {o the custody of the child vide FCOP/GWOP No.110 of 2018 before the Family Court at Tirupati. 25. Since the boy has been forcibly taken away without' any lawful authority or with the aid of any order passed by the Indian Court and since the welfare of the chilcl is a paramourfu consideration, it will be just and proper for us to direct the mother to subject herself to. the jurisdiction of the civil Court in FCOP/GWOP No.110 of 2018 before the Family Court-Gum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and produce the child before the said court. In which event, the said Court shall examine the boy, father, mother and all concerned and then pass appropriate orders. In our view, deciding of the issue by the appropriate civil Court is very much essential, more so, in view of the judgment of the division bench of this Court in Alekhya YalamanchiliJs case, where the court held that even if the child is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, if parties have approached the civil court, which is within 'the supervisory or superintendence jurisdictiona[ area of High Court, it is entitled to assu.me jurisdiction. 26. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the 12th respondent to produce N. Jainarayan Sai, a minor child aged about 5 years, son of the petitioner and the 12{h respondent, before the Family Court at Tirupati within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy .of this order. On which, the concerned civil court shall decide the issue 30 c. cTgo'.J6 f7 To:goSl9 b - relating to interim custody of the child pending o.p. as well the O.P. in accordance with law at the earliest." 40. The finding of this court, which has becomefinaI, is thatthe, respondent has taken away the child, from the lawful custody of the petitioner, and that she has to return the child to lndI'a, for a decision On further custody. The continued refusal to comply with the directions of the court is clearly willful. The respondent now contends that she is unable to bring the child to Tirupathi. because of the orders of the court in Texas. What is not highlighted is that the respondent herself, after the child had oJ been brought to India, approached the court in Michigan, for obtaining custody of the child and then approached the court l'n Texas, after the court in Michigan refused to take up the case. The orders, prohibiting the movement of the child from America, were orders obtal'ned by her. These are not orders passed against her. These are orders, that she obtained, which can be withdrawn at her request. lt is clear that these orders were obtained by her to circumvent the orders of this court. ln such a situation, the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel are of no avail. 41. The actions of the respondent are dell-berate actions, done to set up a defense and smokescreen against compliance of the orders of this court. The respondent is willfully disobeying the orders of this court, and is clearly guilty of willful disobedience of the orders of this court. This - A+_ v, * I 31 RRR,I & TCDS,I C.C,.No.617 of2019 court has no hes['tation to hold that the respondent has committed contempt of court. 42. This court js cognI'Zant of the fact that the present appll-cation has come up in a chI'ld Custody matter, where parental affectI-On makes parents go to any lengtfi to reta`in or obtal'n custody of thel'r children. However, this court cannot turn a blind eye to the deI['bera{e and clear cut violatI'OnS Of the orders of this court. 43. Balancing both factors, thl-s court is of the opI'niOn that the respondent should be given an opportunI'ty tO Purge herself lot the contempt of court committed by her. Accordingly, she is given an opportunI|ty tO Produce the child before the Family Court TI'ruPatI', WjthI-n three months from today, fai[jng which she shall undergo sI®mPIe imprisonment of two weeks and pay a fI'ne Of Rs.2000/-. Failure to pay the said fine shall result in further sjmpJe imprI-SOnment of three days. 44. Accordingly, this contemptcase is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, sha" stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR fS+: SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at AmaFaVathi 2. The Judge, Family Court -Gum- V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District + ` A 3. One CC to Sri N Pavan Kumar (Party in Person), S/o N. Syamasundara Naidu, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Residing at 19-14-ll,- Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupat'l, Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. J M Naidu Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. The Section Officer, OS Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.at Amaravath i 7. Two CD Copies 8. Maheswari Ramineni, D/o R. Muniswamy Naidu, Residing at 5403 sidonie Rose Ln, Katy, Texas -77494, U.S.A.(By Fax/Speed Post) ( ,'| i +. \ .: +. i I 4 ` `` I € . '< .|._\ ` I,`~ HIGH COURT DATED:12/09/2025 ORDER CC NO.617OF2019 Y Sife ifeW ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE