TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued by the High Court for custody of a minor child taken from the lawful custody of the mother, notwithstanding pendency of a criminal prosecution against the father for kidnapping and the constitutional objections under Articles 20(2) and 20(3); (ii) Whether the appellant could avoid compliance with the direction to produce the child and the consequent contempt finding on the ground of impossibility of obedience and the availability of alternative remedies.
Issue (i): Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued by the High Court for custody of a minor child taken from the lawful custody of the mother, notwithstanding pendency of a criminal prosecution against the father for kidnapping and the constitutional objections under Articles 20(2) and 20(3).
Analysis: A writ of habeas corpus is not issued as a matter of course, especially in custody disputes between parents, but it is maintainable where clear grounds are shown and a child has been unlawfully removed from the lawful custody of the other parent. The pending criminal case did not bar the writ. Article 20(3) protected against compelled self-incrimination, but did not create immunity from producing the child or from the court acting on unchallenged evidence. The father was not compelled to testify against himself, and his refusal to enter the witness box or cross-examine the witnesses did not defeat the mother's evidence, which remained unchallenged.
Conclusion: The writ of habeas corpus was rightly issued, and the constitutional objections under Articles 20(2) and 20(3) failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could avoid compliance with the direction to produce the child and the consequent contempt finding on the ground of impossibility of obedience and the availability of alternative remedies.
Analysis: A person cannot be punished for contempt where obedience is impossible, but that defence was not available on the facts found by the High Court. The evidence established that the child had been unlawfully taken from the mother's custody, and the appellant's bare denial did not establish impossibility. The existence of alternative remedies under other proceedings did not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction where a court's order had been deliberately flouted. The High Court's contempt finding was therefore justified, though the sentence was modified by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: The contempt finding was upheld, and only the sentence was altered.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the writ and contempt orders failed in substance, but the punishment for contempt was reduced to a fixed term of simple imprisonment and fine.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of habeas corpus may be granted to restore a minor child to lawful custody even when a parallel criminal prosecution is pending, and Article 20(3) does not exempt a party from complying with a lawful direction to produce the child or from the consequences of wilful disobedience.
TaxTMI 
