Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1981 (2) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t 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. 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. 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. Dushyant Somal accompanied by three or four other persons came in a car and forcibly took away the child. At that time Sushma Somal was helping her daughter to board a bus to go to School. After Sweta boarded the bus she came towards the place where her son was to board the bus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s mother by his father and that he was being kept under illegal detention by the father. 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 could be entrusted to the mother. Despite the direction of the Court the appellant did not produce the child. The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was clearly guilty of contempt 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. Criminal Appeal No, 12 of 1981 has been filed against the order of the Delhi High Court committing the appellant to prison for contempt of Court. Special Leave Petition No. 1 of 1981 i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the High Court was wrong in sentencing him to an indefinite term of imprisonment which may even exceed the maximum prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. There can be no question that a Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to be issued as a matter of course, particularly when the writ is sought against a parent for the custody of a child. Clear grounds must be made out. Nor is a person to be punished for contempt of Court for disobeying an order of Court except when the disobedience is established beyond reasonable doubt, the standard of proof being similar, even if not the same, as in a criminal proceeding. Where the person alleged to be in contempt is able to place before the Court sufficient material to conclude that it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. The submission made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that a petition for the issue of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not appropriate in cases where he was also charged with a criminal offence, in respect of the very person in respect of whose custody the writ was sought is without substance. In support of this submission reliance was placed upon the following observation of Hidayatullah, J in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. A Ors. 1964CriLJ590 It is of course singularly inappropriate in cases where the petitioner himself is charged with a criminal offence in respect of the very person for whose custody he demands the writ. It is obvious that the submission made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is based on a misunde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant-petitioner to be a witness against himself. He was free to examine himself as a witness or not. If he examined himself he could still refuse to answer questions, answers to which might incriminate him in pending prosecutions. He was also free to examine or not other witnesses on his behalf and to cross examine or not, witnesses examined by the opposite party. Protection against testimonial compulsion did not convert the position of a person accused of an offence into a position of privilege, with, immunity from any other action contemplated by law. A. criminal prosecution was not a fortress against all other actions in law. To accept the position that the pendency of a prosecution was a valid answer to a rule for Habeas Corpus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates