Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The above passage would make it clear that there is no absolute rule that the party in contempt shall not be heard. The correct position which has emerged from the various decisions appears to be that generally a party in contempt shall not be heard only in those cases where his contempt impedes the course of justice and there is no other way of enforcing the orders of the Court. In the case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson, (1952) 2 All ER 567 (574), the Court of appeal in England reviewed the entire case law on the subject in detail. In that case, on a petition filed by wife for dissolution of her marriage, a decree nisi was granted by the Court and it was directed that the child should remain in the custody of his mother but he should not be removed out of the jurisdiction without the sanction of the Court. The mother subsequently remarried and without the sanction of the Court she removed the child to Australia. On an application by the father an order was made bv the Court directing the mother to return the child within the jurisdiction of English Courts. The mother filed an appeal against the said order. The father raised a preliminary objection that the mother was not entitled to be heard in appeal as she was in contempt in removing the child out of the jurisdiction of the Court without its sanction in defiance of the order of the Court. After considering the question at length the Court of Appeal held that the mother was not entitled to be heard unless she had taken the first and essential steps towards purging her contempt by returning the child within the jurisdiction of the Court. Lord Denning considered a number of earlier English cases and thereafter observed as under:--

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson, (1952) 2 All ER 567 (supra) in support of his contention that unless the respondents in the present case took steps to purge the contempt, they were not entitled to hearing and their defence in the Writ Petition was liable to be struck off. In my opinion, however, the true position which emerges from the cases discussed and from the celeberated opinion of Lord Denning is that unless the disobedience of a party impedes the course: of justice in the case, making it difficult for the Court to ascertain the truth or to enforce its orders it would not be proper exercise of discretion to refuse the party in contempt any hearing. In the present case, admittedly no order of the Court was disobeyed by the respondents, nor there was the question of enforcement of any of the Court's orders. There is further no difficulty for this Court to ascertain the truth or to decide the questions involved in the writ petition. The respondents took an improper step in considering the questions on merit which were sub judice before this Court and thus they were held guilty of contempt of Court. The case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson, in my opinion, does not lend any support to the petitioner's contention.