Child Custody|Telangana High Court|Shujahat Hussain V. Sidra Hussain|Advocate-Mother Violates Visitation Order; High Court Issues Contempt Directions
- DTN
- Dec 11
- 7 min read
Confused about where your case stands?
Get a Preparatory Assessment : Factual, Sharp and Tailored to your situation
📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment.
Download the Visual Carousel (PDF)
Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.
Telangana High Court – Contempt Case (CC) NO: 1388/2025 - Date of Order : 16.07.2025
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya And Justice B. R. Madhusudhan Rao
Shujahat Hussain (Petitioner) Vs. Sidra Hussain (Respondent)
Reason: The husband filed the Contempt Case under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying the High Court to punish the wife for committing the Act of Contempt of the Orders of this Court dated 04-03-2025 in WP. No. 4440 of 2025 by not returning the minors after the visitation rights back to the husband on 2l-06-2025.
Brief Facts: The Court permitted the wife to visit the three minor children on every Saturday and Sunday from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., whenever, she is in Hyderabad. The Court further directed that the wife shall be responsible for picking up and dropping off the children to the residence of the husband within the time frame directed. The visitation hours were fixed according to the convenience indicated by both the parties and the fact that the children attend school on Saturdays till 3:00 P.M.
On 21.06.2025, the wife took the children from the husband's house. The husband tried to contact the wife on her mobile phone, but the phone was found to be switched off. The husband also tried to contact the parents of the wife, and around 9:30 P.M. on 21.06.2025, came to know that the wife had taken the children with her to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, by Indigo Flight No. 6E-7594, which departed Hyderabad at 7:15 P.M. on the same day. The husband lodged a complaint with the Jubilee Hills Police Station, at 23:17 hours on 21.06.2025. G.W.O.P. No.55 of 2025 filed by the Husband before the Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad, seeking permanent custody of the children is pending as on date.
The above facts have not been disputed by the wife in the Counter. The Counter states that the children are currently in the custody of the wife and have been enrolled in a school in Bhopal. The counter further alleges that the husband ill-treated the wife, neglected the minor children and voluntarily handed the children over to the wife's custody.
The wife raised the issue of maintainability of the Contempt Case on the ground that the husband is not entitled to seek the return of the three minor children and to produce them in the Court since such relief would go beyond the directions contained in the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in the Writ Petition.
Observations of the Hon’ble Court:
On maintainability:
ln Meenal Bhargava Vs. Naveen Sharma ((2018) 15 SCC 23), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant by setting aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court passed in the Contempt Petition filed by the respondent. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the Contempt Petition in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that contempt would lie for violation of the Order passed by this Court on 04.03.2025. This is particularly so where the fact of disobedience has not been disputed by the wife.
It is relevant that the Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by the wife was disposed of on 04.03.2025, on the ground that a G.W.O.P had already been filed by the husband for permanent custody of the mirror children and the wife was given liberty to contest that proceeding. Additionally, visitation rights were granted to the wife on her prayer.
Before entering into the merits of the rival contentions on the admitted violation of the order dated 04.03.2025, the wife should first be directed to return the three minor children to the husband. Such a direction would be in line with the requirement of purging the act of contempt.
To “purge” is to cleanse or to undo the wrong.
Purging is a process by which an undesirable element is expelled from a person or society. The concept of purging is rooted in theological origins and purification of souls from deadly sins. The act of purging has been recognised as an essential facet of contempt jurisdiction where the contemnor is called upon to expiate its guilt before facing the Court:
Pravin C. Shah Vs. K. A. Mohd. Ali ((2001) 8 SCC 650). The act of undoing the wrong is borne out of equity where the contumacious conduct must first be wiped clean by the contemnor. In essence, the contemnor can only contest the contempt on a clean slate. The necessity of purging on the part of the contemnor has been reiterated by the Courts in several cases.
ln Pravin C. Shah (supra), the Supreme Court held that the respondent Advocate cannot act or plead in any Court situated within the domain of the Kerala High until the process of purging is complete. Purging further requires the contemnor to relinquish the benefit secured as a result of the contumacious conduct:
State Bank of Indio V. Dr. V. Vijay Mallya (2022 INSC 700). In that decision, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that the majesty of law demands that appropriate directions be issued to ensure that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified which may also require the reversal of the transactions in question.
ln Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India ((1998) 4 SCC 409), a 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Court may prevent the contemnor Advocate from appearing before it till he purges himself of the contempt. D.K.C Vs. K.C (2016 SCC Online Del 185) involved a factual situation similar to the one before this Court. The Delhi High Court held that the difficulty in implementing an order passed by the Court cannot justify its non-implementation even if taking the child out of the father's custody may be problematic. The Court consequently directed the respondent-father to return the minor child to the petitioner-mother forthwith.
It should also be noted that availability of an alternative legal recourse, as contended by the respondent/contemnor, does not debar invocation of the provisions of The Contempt of Courts Act, l97l:
Priya Gupta Vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare ((2013) 11 SCC 404). Further, the fact that the writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 04.03.2025 is also of no consequence since the alleged contemnor cannot rely on that fact for justifying contumacious conduct: Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand ((2004) 7 SCC 261).
The power of the Court to preserve its majesty by ensuring compliance of its orders is not a self-serving mechanism but rather one that instils public confidence in the proper administration of justice. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of the Courts of Law since the image of Courts in the minds of the people as seats of justice cannot be distorted. The respect commanded by Courts of Law is the greatest guarantee of the democratic fabric of the society which cannot be undermined: Murray & Co. Vs. Ashok Kr. Newatia ((2000) 2 SCC 367).
Further, the object of the discipline enforced by the Court in matters of compliance is not only to vindicate the dignity of the Court but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. Any interference with the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and is punishable as contempt of Court. If a party is conscious and aware of the consequences but acts in violation nonetheless, the disobedience can be taken as wilful: Balwantbhai Sombhai Bhandar Vs. Hiralal Sombhai Contractor (2023 SCC Online SC 113); Bank of Baroda Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya ((2004) I SCC 360).
The above discussion is only intended for the purpose of reinforcing that the wife must first return the minor children to the husband before contesting the Contempt Case on merits. The conduct of the wife, unfortunately, leaves the Court with no option but to direct that the three minor children be restored to the same arrangement / state of affairs which existed on the date of the Order dated 04.03.2025. In other words, the wife must immediately undo the act of contempt before offering any explanation for the contumacious conduct.
We have been informed that the wife is a practicing Advocate of Bhopal. Therefore, it is only to be expected that the wife would be aware of the consequences of disobedience of Court Orders. Notably, the wife did not file any application for varying or modifying the Order dated 04.03.2025. In the absence of such application, taking the children from Hyderabad to Bhopal is a clear act of disobedience of the Order dated 04.03.2025. The contention that the husband would have a fresh cause of action to file a writ of Habeas Corpus is secondary and irrelevant to the admitted act of contempt.
As stated above, the Writ Petition filed by the wife was disposed of on 04.03.2025 on the wife agreeing to contest the G.W.O.P filed by the husband in the Family Court and on the Court allowing the prayer of visitation (made by the wife).
The act of contempt on the part of the wife is, without a doubt, wilful and deliberate. The wife has neither tendered any apology nor expressed any remorse for the disobedience. The wife's only stand is of maintainability of the Contempt Case and the alleged incompetence of the direction prayed for by the husband. The defiance shown by the wife warrants appropriate directions. We are conscious of passing an order which exceeds the limits prescribed under section 12 (1) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, the direction prayed for does not contravene the said provision.
We accordingly have no hesitation in directing the wife to return the three minor children to the husband within 7 days from today.
Comments