Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
24. In any event, she stated that as the minor child had been brought back to the jurisdiction of this Court, the contempt stood discharged. In support of her submission, she relied upon the Hadkinson Vs. Hadkinson, [1952] 2 All ER 567, wherein according to her, it has been held that return of the child was adequate for discharge of contempt.
25. Ms. Rajkotia submitted that the equity is a part of contempt jurisdiction and equity part of contempt jurisdiction is parens patriae. She submitted that best interest of the child and parens patriae jurisdiction is not limited to family Courts and custody cases, but all pervasive to every Court in any case concerning a child in any manner. She further submitted that justice must be served at every point and in every case particularly, when the person seeking justice is a child who is not represented in Court. She pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2015 SC 2569 has quoted with approval the Convention on the Rights of the Child in particular its Article 12 which reads as under:-
(emphasis supplied)
50. If violation of Court orders is not viewed seriously, it will have wide spread deleterious effect on the authority of the Courts to implement their orders or compel their adherence.
HADKINSON JUDGMENT NOWHERE STATES THAT ONCE THE CHILD HAS BEEN BROUGHT BACK, THE CONTEMPT STANDS DISCHARGED.
51. This Court is also not in agreement with respondent no. 1‟s argument that as the minor child has been brought back, the contempt stands discharged. In Hadkinson (supra) it was held that till the child was brought back to the Court that had passed the initial order, the defaulting spouse would not be heard. Judgment in Hadkinson (supra) nowhere states that once the child has been brought back to the jurisdiction of the Court that had passed the initial order, the contempt would stand discharged.