Sakshi Nagrath vs Tarun Arora

$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2026
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 and CM APPLs.25627/2024, 29459/2024,

+
33467/2024, 45944/24, 65753/2024, 32573/2025, 34652/2025

SAKSHI NAGRATH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Asmita, Ms.
Kirti Mewar and Mr. Arjun Gaur,
Advs.
versus
TARUN ARORA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Arnav
Mittal and Mr. Akash Mishra, Advs.,
UOI.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, SPP and Mr.
Shivender Gupta, Adv., CBI.
CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT


1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful

disobedience/non-compliance by the respondent no. 1 with the directions
contained in the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in appeal bearing MAT APP. (FC) 336 of 2023, and the order dated
09.10.2023 passed in the guardianship petition bearing GP No. 02/2022. It
is submitted that in the order dated 09.10.2023, the case number is
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 1 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

mentioned as GP No. 51/2022, however, at the time of filing of the said
petition, it was assigned GP No. 02/2022.
2. The factual conspectus of the matter is that the petitioner was the wife
and respondent no. 1 was the husband. It is submitted by the petitioner that,
during the pendency of the present petition, a decree of divorce was passed
by the learned Family Court, District South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi,
on 06.11.2025. The divorce petition was filed by the petitioner under
Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the
grounds of cruelty and desertion by respondent no. 1.
3. The petitioner and respondent no. 1 were married in New Delhi on
30.01.2005, as per Hindu rituals and customs. At the time of marriage, both
the petitioner and respondent no. 1 were citizens of India.
4. However, during the subsistence of the marriage, respondent no. 1

acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and is presently an Overseas
Citizen of India (OCI) card holder. The petitioner, on the other hand, was
and continues to remain a citizen of India.
5. From the marriage, the petitioner and respondent no. 1 have a minor
daughter, namely Meher Arora, who was born on 14.06.2013. The minor
daughter is in petitioner’s exclusive custody and care.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner and the minor daughter have not
visited the United Kingdom since July 2019 and respondent no. 1 has not
visited India to meet the petitioner and the minor daughter since January
2020.
7. It is submitted that till December 2021, respondent no. 1 was paying
the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- per month. From January 2022
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 2 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

onwards till date, respondent no. 1 has stopped the said payments.
8. In April 2022, the petitioner filed a guardianship petition, being GP
No. 02/2022, against respondent no. 1, praying that the petitioner be
appointed as the sole guardian of the minor daughter. The respondent no. 1
entered appearance in the said guardianship proceedings on 08.06.2022.
9. It is emphasised by the petitioner that, in the reply filed in the
guardianship proceedings, respondent no. 1 admitted that he had been
paying a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- per month as maintenance till December
2021.
10. However, no payments have been made thereafter. It is further
submitted that the reason furnished by respondent no. 1 for stopping the
payment was that he allegedly did not know the “whereabouts of the
petitioner and his daughter” and that he “stopped sending the money as he
was not aware of where and to whom he was sending the money.”
Therefore, it is submitted that the cessation of payment was not on account
of any alleged inability to pay.
11. By order dated 09.10.2023, the learned Family Court, in the
guardianship petition, directed respondent no. 1 to continue paying a sum of
Rs. 1.40 lakhs per month to the petitioner, as an interim measure to protect
the interests and welfare of the minor daughter. The said payments were
th
directed to be made by the 7 day of every month. The relevant portion of
the order is reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 3 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 4 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

12. Aggrieved thereby, respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal, being MAT

APP. (FC) 336 of 2023, before the Division Bench of this Court against the
order dated 09.10.2023. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 5 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

28.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby respondent
no. 1 was directed to continue making payments as directed by the learned
Family Court. However, this Court directed respondent no. 1 to make
payment of the sum of Rs. 1.40 lakhs per month in two equal instalments on
quarterly basis. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:


Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 6 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

13. Being aggrieved by the wilful disobedience of the orders dated
09.10.2023 and 28.11.2023, the petitioner has filed the present contempt
petition against respondent no. 1.
14. It is submitted that, upon receiving advance service of the present
contempt petition, respondent no. 1 filed an application, being CM Appl.
No. 14415/2024, in MAT APP. (FC) 336 of 2023 before the Division
Bench, seeking modification of the order dated 28.11.2023. By way of the
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 7 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

said application, respondent no. 1 sought to substitute the monetary
payments towards maintenance with an offer to furnish as security, in lieu of
any liability towards the amount found due, a flat bearing No. H-105, Raheja
Atharva, Sector 109, Gurugram. The said application for modification, being
CM Appl. No. 14415/2024, was dismissed by the Division Bench on
15.03.2024.
15. In order to substantiate its case regarding the wilful disobedience of
the orders of this Court, the petitioner has made following submissions –
a) The respondent no. 1 is a qualified MBA and NLP Coach and he was
also running various companies/ businesses, generating huge profits
therefrom which have not been disclosed to the petitioner. Some of
the businesses of the respondent no. 1 from which he had been
generating huge profits as informed by the respondent no. 1 himself to
the petitioner, are i) GSM. Traders Property Company Limited (the
Respondent no. 1 has filed for voluntary winding up of this Company
in July 2022, after litigation started, ii) GSM. Traders Limited (the
Respondent no. 1 has filed for voluntary winding up of GSM. Traders
Limited in July 2022, after litigation started, iii) Cruises Limited; iv)
gjboon.com; v) Sacred Blue; vi) Pickra Wholesale Limited.
b) It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was the only shareholder and

Director of GSM Traders Limited, GSM Traders Property Company
Limited, and Cruises Limited. The respondent no. 1 also owned
several other businesses, assets, bank accounts, properties and
investments, crypto currency, in his own name and in the name of his
companies.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 8 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

c) It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 in the Guardianship
Proceedings sought reference to mediation on the pretext of settling.
However, while the mediation was pending, with the dishonest and
malafide intention to attempt to over-reach the Court in India and to
avoid his obligations towards the petitioner and minor daughter, on
25.07.2022 the respondent no. 1 himself surreptitiously filed for
“voluntary” winding up of two of his companies in the United
Kingdom, - (a) GSM. Traders Limited; and (b) GSM Traders Property
Company Limited.
d) It is contended that the same was a deliberate attempt by the
respondent no. 1 to hide his business and companies.
e) It is averred that for the year 2020, his company GSM Traders
Limited showed the assets as £930,887.00 and liabilities as
£425,099.00 (which is a surplus of assets of £505,788.00 which is
approximately INR 5.30 crores in that year). The Company, GSM
Traders Property Company Limited also owned immovable property
i.e. Units 7 and 8, Oak Court, Sandwell Business Park, Oldbury, West
Midlands, B661QG. It is submitted that as per the records of the
companies available on the internet the petitioner has become aware
that the said asset has been sold for £325,501.00.
f) After paying off all the debts, GM Traders Property Company
Limited had surplus of £144,029.27 (approx. INR 1.51 crores) as on
24.07.2023.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 9 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

g) It is further emphasised that the respondent no. 1 is the sole director of
the company, Cruises Limited. As per the Financial Statement of
Cruises Ltd. for the year ended on 31.12.2021, Cruises Ltd. has a sum
of 15,336 pounds (approximately Rs.18 lakhs) as “Cash at bank”. As
per the said financial statement for the year ended on 31.12.2021,
Cruises Ltd. has also made a profit of 8,075 pounds in the year, and
the said entire sum of 8,075 pounds was distributed as dividends.
h) It is also pointed that it was also reported in newspapers in
Birmingham that respondent no.1 has an annual turnover in excess of
2 million pounds which in Indian currency is more than Rs.20.00
crores.
i) It is submitted that while he had stopped sending money from
December, 2021, the respondent no. 1 continued to collect child
welfare from the UK Government in the name of minor even after
December, 2021.
j) It is the contention of the petitioner that in the Guardianship
Proceedings, the respondent no. 1 filed his income affidavit dated
01.11.2022. In the said income affidavit, respondent no. 1 concealed
and suppressed the existence of his abovementioned companies. He
also concealed and suppressed two bank account bearing nos.
70943584 and 53514196, which were the bank accounts of his
companies. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 disclosed only
bank account bearing no. 83733173 with Barclays Bank.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 10 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

k) It is submitted that the petitioner only found out about the account
nos. 70943584 and 53514196, when the petitioner checked each and
every entry from the statement of account bearing no. 83733173. The
petitioner discovered that the said account bearing no. 83733173 was
having debit and credit entries from the bank account bearing nos.
70943584 and 53514196. It is further submitted that the respondent
no. 1 suppressed and concealed his income tax returns, details of
bitcoins (cryptocurrency), investments, details of companies,
businesses, etc.
l) It is emphasised that even though the Guardianship Proceedings were
pending before the Ld. Family Court, Saket, New Delhi and the
respondent no. 1 was also appearing in the same, yet on 01.09.2022,
the respondent no. 1 filed proceedings bearing No. 1659-0249-5670-
6214 (‘UK Divorce Proceedings’) before the HM Courts & Tribunal
Services, United Kingdom against the petitioner herein, seeking
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
m) It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 filed the UK Divorce
Proceedings by making a false declaration that “there are no other
court cases which are related to the marriage.” Being aggrieved of the
same the petitioner filed a civil suit bearing No.20/2022 before the
Ld. Family Court, Saket, New Delhi, seeking permanent injunction
against the respondent no. 1 from proceeding with the UK Divorce
Proceedings. It is submitted that the same has been decreed by a
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 11 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

judgment dated 12.01.2026, whereby the respondent no. 1 has been
permanently restrained from continuing the UK Divorce Proceedings.
n) It is further highlighted that after the order dated 09.10.2023 was
passed in the Guardianship Proceedings, on 09.11.2023 (i.e. within a
month of the order dated 09.10.2023) the family house/ property of
the respondent no. 1 in the name of his parents, at House no. 39,
Pocket F-26, Sector- 7, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 was sold to try to avoid
the obligation towards the minor daughter and to overreach the orders
of the courts in India.
o) It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has committed wilful
disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in the present petition,
and the conduct of the respondent no. 1 during the course of the
present petition is evident from the following:
(i) By the order 08.04.2024 passed in the present Contempt

Petition, this Court directed the respondent no. 1 to “pay an
amount of 4,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 10
days from today.” The Respondent no. 1 did not comply with
the said order. The respondent no. 1 paid only a sum of
Rs.30,000/- on 18.04.2024, that too from the joint account of
the parties.
(ii) The respondent no. 1 has concealed and suppressed, inter-alia,
the bank account statement of his companies for the period
from 01.04.2019 onwards, the complete statements of his
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 12 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

cryptocurrency/ Binance trading account for the period from
01.04.2019, etc.
(iii) Therefore, the petitioner filed the application bearing CM
Appl. 29459/2024 in the present petition, seeking directions
against the Respondent no. 1 for disclosure of his income tax
returns, complete bank account statements of the Respondent
no. 1 and his companies, details of Respondent no. 1’s
investments in crypto currency/ Binance, etc.
(iv) By the order dated 16.05.2024 (as corrected by the order dated
30.05.2024), this Court directed the respondent no. 1 to file the
documents as prayed for in the said CM Appl. 29459/2024.
(v) The respondent no. 1 refused to comply with the directions
even in the contempt petition. He did not pay the amounts, nor
did he file the complete documents. Respondent no. 1 did not
file the complete bank account statements either in the Ld.
Family Court or before this Court in the present contempt
petition, despite directions. To play fraud, by index dated
21.05.2024, he filed only statements showing account balance
of the bank accounts of his companies only on a particular date
after the date on which disputes arose between the parties.
(vi) Therefore, the petitioner filed another application bearing CM
Appl. 33467/2024, once again seeking directions against the
respondent no. 1 for filing of complete bank accounts
statements and complete statement of investments made by
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 13 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

respondent no. 1 in cryptocurrency/ Binance, etc. By an order
dated 30.05.2024, this Court was pleased to issue notice to the
respondent no. 1 on the said application. However, the
respondent no. 1 did not comply with that order as well and
filed selected documents only.
(vii) By an order dated 12.08.2024, this Court was pleased to direct
the respondent no. 1 to “make the immediate payment of
maintenance towards the well-being and maintenance of his
daughter w.e.f. January, 2024 within a month from today.”
(viii) It is submitted that realising that he would not be able to escape
the consequences of his contemptuous conduct, by an email
dated 03.11.2024, the respondent no. 1 has refused to appear in
any proceedings before the Courts in India.
(ix) Respondent no. 1 had sufficient funds to comply with the

orders of the court. However, he did not comply with the same.
(x) Notice was also issued to the liquidator by the order dated
06.05.2025 and 18.02.2026 passed by this Court. He also did
not appear and file any documents.
16. Vide reply dated 22.04.2024 filed in response to the present petition,

respondent no. 1 had stated as under:–
a. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1’s failure to discharge the
liability towards ad interim maintenance is neither wilful nor
deliberate.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 14 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

b. It is submitted that the sole reason for non-payment of maintenance in
terms of the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Family Court, as
affirmed vide orders dated 28.11.2023 and 08.04.2024 passed by this
Court, is the respondent no. 1’s financial incapacity and lack of
sufficient funds.
c. It is submitted that the Family Court has yet to undertake a detailed
examination of the matter and has not returned any conclusive finding
regarding the respondent no. 1 actual income.
d. It is contended that, before invoking contempt jurisdiction, an
adjudication regarding the respondent no. 1’s present financial status
and capacity to comply with the maintenance order is necessary.
e. The respondent no. 1 further submitted that the petitioner has sought
to create a misleading impression regarding the respondent no. 1’s
financial status by selectively relying upon the balance sheet of GSM
Traders Limited for the year ending 31.12.2020.
f. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the said
balance sheet is wholly misconceived and suppresses the true
financial position of the company. It is emphasised that the
subsequent Statement of Affairs dated 13.07.2022 evidences liabilities
and creditor claims amounting to £12,39,856.96, ultimately resulting
in liquidation proceedings being initiated against the company.
g. It is submitted that the liquidation of GSM Traders Limited and GSM
Traders Property Company Limited was necessitated on account of
overwhelming debts exceeding the value of the companies’ assets.
h. It is further submitted that the present contempt petition is not
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 15 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has already availed multiple
alternate remedies in respect of the same alleged default, including:
(i) an application dated 08.01.2024 before the Family Court seeking
compliance with the orders dated 09.10.2023 and 28.11.2023;
(ii) Execution Petition No. 11/2024 seeking execution of the aforesaid
orders before the Family Court; and
(iii) an application dated 25.01.2024 seeking striking off of the
respondent no. 1’s defence in the substantive proceedings.
i. It is also submitted that the Family Court is yet to adjudicate upon the
maintainability of the subject application pursuant to which the ad
interim maintenance order dated 09.10.2023 came to be passed. It is
submitted that even while passing the order dated 28.11.2023, this
Court was pleased to keep open the respondent no. 1’s objections
regarding maintainability, to be adjudicated by the learned Family
Court.
17. At the outset, this Court considers it apposite to briefly advert to the
developments that have transpired during the course of the present
proceedings. The facts and circumstances arising during the pendency of the
proceedings, insofar as they are relevant for the present purposes, have been
delineated in detail in the order dated 06.05.2025, which is reproduced
hereunder:–
th
“ 3. On 06
March 2024, notice was issued to the respondent.
th
April 2024, Mr. Deepak Yadav, Advocate, entered appearance for the
respondent. Despite directions, respondent/husband failed to appear before the
Court. In this context, the Court passed the following observations:
4. On 08
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 16 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

“2. This Court has taken a very serious view of this matter that the
orders passed by the Courts are being taken lightly by the respondent
and are being flouted with impugnity in this manner
3.
.
The respndent is not complying with the orders passed by the
learned Family Court, as he is not making the payments towards ad-
interim maintenance to the petitioner. Furthermore, he has also
showed scant regard for the order passed by this Court, wherein he
was directed to appear through Video Conferencing
4.
.
The respondent is cautioned that in case he violates the orders or
takes the order of the Court lightly in future, appropriate orders shall
be passed by this Court
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitoner submits that as of
today, an amount of ₹9,80,000/ - is due and payable to the petitoner
from the respondent.
.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitoner further submits that
the respondent had sought modification of the order dated 28th
November, 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench in MAT APP.
(FC) No.336/2023. However, the said application filed by the
respondent was dismissed by the learned Division Bench on 15th
March, 2024.
7. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment for the
respondent in complying with the directions passed by the learned
Division Bench of this Court.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that the respndent shall pay an amount
of ₹4,00,000/ - to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from
today.”
(emphasis added)
5. Respndent/husband subsequently pleaded that the title documents and keys
of the ‘Flat bearing No.H.105, Raheja Atharva, Sector 109 Gurugram,
Haryana’ be handed over by the petitioner/wife to him, considering that the
keys of the said apartment had been handed over by the respndent/husband to
her. This was in the context of the plea made by the respondent/husband that
he would be able to sell the flat and utilise the monies to shore up the
maintenance.

th
6. On 16
May 2024, counsel for the respondent stated that the company of
the respondent/husband was under liquidation and, therefore, the
respondent/husband was not able to pay the amount.

7. In the meantime, an application being CM APPL.29459/2024 had been
filed by the petitioner/wife seeking directions against the respondnet/husband
to file documents to disclose and verify his financial status.
Respondent/husband stated that he had not concealed any income, assets,
investments, funds and bank accounts from the Court. It was stated that on
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 17 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

the contrary, he stated that he had no financial capability to comply with the
th
order dated 28
November 2023.

8. Paragraph 8 of the said application is being extracted as under for ease of
reference:
8. From the Income Affidavit filed by the Respondent itself it is clear
that the Respondent has deliberately and wilfully suppressed and
concealed the following investments, bank accounts, funds etc. only in
order to hide and conceal his financialy capability and to avoid his
obligations towards the minor daughter:

(i) The Respondent has deliberately not filed copies of his income tax
returns as mentioned in Section F serial no.7 of the Income Affidavit.

(ii) The Respondent has deliberately not filed copies of statements of
all his bank accounts for last three years as mentioned in Section F
serial no.9 of the Income Affidavit.

(iii) Respondent has Concealed account no.70943584 completely in
his Income Affidavit. The Respondent has filed a statement of a bank
account bearing no.83733173 with Barclays Bank. From a perusal of
the said bank account is clear that Respondent is operating and
maintaining another bank account bearing no.70943584, but the same
is concealed and suppressed completely.

(iv) The bank account bearing no.83733173 of the Respondent with
Barclays Bank has been having debit and credit entries from the bank
account bearing no.70943584.

(v) A perusal of the below mentioned entries will show that the
Respondent had first transferred large amounts of money from his
bank account bearing no.83733173 with Barclays Bank to concealed
account no.70943584, so that the balance amount in the Barclays
Bank remains very low/minimum. Whenever, Respondent has to incur
any expense or make any payment, he would transfer money from the
concealed account no.70943584 to his bank account bearing
no.83733173 with Barclays Bank. He may have also received funds
into that account from other sources. The said account has been
concealed and suppressed by the Respondent and he has given a false
declaration.

(vi) A list of some of the entries in the account of the Respondent at
Barclays Bank bearing no.83733179 with the concealed account
no.70943584 of the Respondent are as under ( @ page no.149
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 18 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

onwards of the Income Affidavit, copy of which has been filed in the
present petition under an Index dated 01.05.2024 by the petitioner ) :



Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 19 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

(vii) The Respondent is liable to file the bank statement of the said bank
account bearing no.70943584 for the period from 01.04.2019 onwards till
date.
(viii) When the same was discovered and the Respondent was confronted with
it, he has tried to file a single page of the bank statement to show that there is
no balance in the same. He has deliberately tried to hide the said account and
the bank statements of the same. The Respondent has, along-with his reply
dated 22.04.2024 to the present contempt petition, annexed (at Annexure R-
21 @ page no.282) only a single page showing the purported balance in the
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 20 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

said bank account bearing no.70943584 as on 13.05.2022.

(ix) The Respondent has concealed and suppressed the bank statement of the
said bank account bearing no.70943584 for the period of three years prior to
the filing of the Guardianship Petitioner, i.e. for the period from 01.04.2019
till date. The same is a deliberate attempt by the Respondent to misled, and to
play fraud on this Hon’ble Court.

(x) The Respondent has also concealed another bank account bearing
no.53514196 completely. The Respondent has received payments from an
account bearing no.53514196 in his bank account bearing no.83733173 with
Barclays Bank. However, no details and bank statements/ details of the said
concealed bank account bearing no.53514196 are filed. The following entries
in the bank statement for account no.83733173 filed by the Respondent show
money received from the account bearing no.53514196 :



(xi) The Respondent is liable to file the bank statement of the said bank
account bearing no.53514196 for the period from 01.04.2019 onwards
till date.

(xii) In the bank statements filed by the Respondent along-with the
Income Affidavit, the details of the bank account/ linked accounts/
investments have been scratched out/ made illegible deliberately to
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 21 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

conceal and suppress the said information. The same is clear from the
bank statement wherein on every first page of the bank statement the
said details have been scratched out/ coloured, such as at page nos.27,
31, 39, 42 etc. in the bank statement. There is deliberate attempt to
supress and conceal the details.

(xiii) Along-with his reply to the present contempt petition, the
Respondent has filed a statement of his bank account bearing
no.10449627 at Annexure R-7 (@ page no.125). It is pertient to note
that the said statement of the Respndent’s bank account bearing
no.10449627 is only for the period from September, 2022 onwards (the
Guardianship Petition was filed in April, 2022). The Respondent has
not filed, and he his attempting to suppress and conceal, the statement
of the said bank account bearing no.10449627 for the period from
01.04.2019 onwards. The Respndent is liable to file statement of the
said bank account bearing no.10449627 for the period from 01.04.2019
onwards till date.

(xiv) The Respndent has also received a sum of 15,000 GBP on
17.02.2022 in Account No.83733173 ( @ page no.122 of the Income
Affidavit, copy of which has been filed in the present petition under
an Index dated 01.05.2024 by the Petitoner ). The Respndent has not
disclosed the source of these substantial receipts and utilization of the
same.

(xv) In the Income Affidavit filed by the Respondent, the Respondent
has declared that he has not investments other than those disclosed
therein and all his investments, assets, etc., have been disclosed. The
Respondent has suppressed and concealed the investments, assets, etc.
that he has made. The Respondent has, inter-alia, made substantial
investments in cryptocurrencies/ bitcoins through “ Binance ”. The
same is evident from the following entries reflected in the Respondent’s
bank account statement for the bank account bearing no.83733173
maintained with the Barclays Bank .

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 22 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

The Respondent has suppressed and concealed the above in his Income
Affidavit. In the Income Affidavit, there is no mention of the said investments
with Binance or other assets, etc. There may be other and more investments
also but the above is from the statement provided by him. No details of the
same were provided. The Respondent has dishonestly and fraudulently
suppressed and concealed all his investments and assets to mis-lead and to
play fraud and he has made a false declaration on oath. Along-with his reply
to the present contempt petition, the Respondent has filed an account
statement of his Binance account (at Annexure R-22 @ page nos. 284 to 322).
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 23 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

However, the same has not been filed for the period since the opening of the
said Binance account. The same does not show the details of date of purchase
of cryptocurrency, amount, value and date for the sale of the same.

(xvi) As per section I, serial nos. 1 to 7 of the Income Affidavit , the
Respondent was obliged to provide details about his businesses/companies.
However, he has concealed and suppressed the same, which is clear from the
following:

a. The Respondent has the following companies/ businesses entities:
i. GSM Traders Property Company Limited;
ii. GSM Traders Limited;
iii. Cruises Limited; and
iv. GJ Boon.

The Respondent is the only shareholder and Director in the same.

b. The Respondent has not mentioned any details about the same in the
Income Affidavit. No details/ statements of the bank accounts, income, profits,
etc. of the companies and business entities of the Respondent have been
provided by the Respondent, including those of (i) Cruises Limited, (ii) GJ
Boon, (iii) GSM Traders Limited and (iv) GSM Traders Property Company
Limited. Details of the Respondent’s directorships in Cruises Limited, GSM
Traders Limited and GSM Traders Property Company Limited as available
on website by the name of companycheck.co.uk, is annexed along-with the
present contempt petition at Annexure P-5 (@ page nos.99, 101, 102).

c. As per the information available on the website by the name of
companycheck.co.uk, the financial details of the companies/ business is
already annexed along-with the contempt petition at Annexure P-5, as per
which:

i. In 2020, the total current assets of GSM Traders Limited were in excess of
GBP 505,788 (approximately INR 5.05 crores) over the total current
liabilities.

ii. The Respondent did not disclose the properties at no.7 and 8, Oak Court,
Crystal Drive, Smethwick, West Midlands, B661QG, United Kingdom.

iii. After commencement of these proceedings, the Respondent applied for
voluntary winding up and in March 2023, the Respondent has sold the
properties of GSM Traders Property Company Private Limited for GBP 325,
501 (approx. INR 3.25 crores)

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 24 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

iv. As on 24.07.2023, there is a surplus funds of GBP 144.029 (approx. INR
1.44 crores) with GSM Traders Property Company Private Limited.

v. As on 31.07.2021, GSM Traders Property Company Private Limited had a
retained earning of GBP 46,417 (approx. INR 46 Lakhs).

vi. As on 31.12.2020 GSM Traders had a retained earning of GBP 220,214
(approx. INR 2.20 crores).

The Respondent had concealed and suppressed the above, the Petitioner has
found the above details from the web link https://find-and-update.company-
information.service.gov.uk/.Copy of the financial statements of GSM Traders
Limited and GSM Traders Property Company Limited, and documents
relating to the liquidation of GSM Traders Property Company Limited are
annexed along-with the contempt petition and the same may kindly be
referred to.

d. In the newspaper in Birmingham it was also reported that Respondent has
an annual turnover in excess of 2 million pounds which in Indian currency is
approximately Rs.20.00 crores. Copy of the newspaper article showing
turnover and warehouse in Birmingham is already annexed along-with the
contempt petition at Annexure-P-4 (@page nos. 92-94).

9. Accordingly, the CM APPL.29459/2024 application sought various documents which
are listed here under:
“ 9. The Petitioner is accordingly filing the present application praying that
in the interest of justice, the Respondent may kindly be directed to disclose
and furnish/file the following details/ documents:
(i) Complete statements of bank account bearing no.70943584 with Barclays
bank for the period from 01.04.2019 till date.
(ii) Complete statements of bank account bearing no.53514196, for the
period from 01.04.2019 till date.
(iii) Complete statement of bank account bearing no.10449627, for the period
from 01.04.2019 till date.
(iv) Complete statement of Binance / cryptocurrency/Bitcoin account of the
Respondent, for the period from 01.04.2019 till date with all details of
payments, purchase, sale, value, and dates of purchase and sale.
(v) Complete details of bank accounts, bank statements and financial
statements of GSM Traders Ltd., for the period from 01.04.2019 till date,
which is a company of the Respondent of which he was the sole director and
shareholder and he applied for its voluntary winding up after the filing of the
Guardianship Petition.
(vi) Complete details of bank accounts, bank statements and financial
statements of GSM Traders Property Company Ltd., for the period from
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 25 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

01.04.2019 till date, which is a company of the Respondent of which he was
the sole director and shareholder and he applied for its voluntary winding up
after the filing of the Guardianship Petition.
(vii) Complete details of bank accounts, bank statements and financial
statements of Cruises Limited for the period from 01.04.2019 till date, which
is a company of the Respondent of which he was the sole director and
shareholder.
(viii) The Respondent is liable to file the bank account details and copy of
statement of bank accounts for the period from 01.04.2019 onwards and till
date, and also the details of all assets, investments, etc. of GJ Boon and
Cruises Limited.
(ix) Complete Income Tax Returns of the respondent and his companies
/businesses for the period from 01.04.2019 till date.”

10. In CM APPL.29459/2024 application, it has been stated that the
respondent/husband had appointed Mr. Richard Toone, [Address: 31st Floor, 40
Bank Street, London, United Kingdom, E145NR, email ID:
[email protected], Telephone Number: 02075161500], as the liquidator for
GSM Traders Property Company Ltd. and GSM Traders Ltd.

11. Accordingly, CM APPL.29459/2024 application sought that Notice be issued to
Mr. Richard Toone and furnish the following documents before this Court, which are
as under:
“ (i) Complete details of bank accounts, bank statements and financial
statements of GSM Traders Ltd., for the period from 01.04.2019 till date,
which is a company of the Respondent of which he was the sole director and
shareholder and he applied for its voluntary winding up after the filing of the
Guardianship Petition.
(ii) Complete details of bank accounts, bank statements and financial
statements of GSM Traders Property Company Ltd., for the period from
01.04.2019 till date, which is a company of the Respondent of which he was
the sole director and shareholder and he applied for its voluntary winding up
after the filing of the Guardianship Petition.”

th
12. Directions were passed by this Court on 16
May 2024 that the documents
enlisted in the application be filed by the respondent/husband. The matter was then
listed subsequently; however, the documents were not filed.
th
13. On 19
July 2024, the Court again noted as under:
“ 4. It is evident that the respondent is putting forth lame excuses to avoid the
payment of maintenance. Let the parties make appropriate submissions
before the learned Judge, Family Courts on the date already fixed. The
learned Family Court shall ascertain the amount of arrears of maintenance
payable by the respondent and shall pass appropriate coercive orders to
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 26 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

recover the arrears of maintenance and ensure future compliances in
accordance with law.”
(emphasis added)

th
14. On 12
August 2024, the Court passed the directions which are as under:

“ 5. Respondent is directed to make the immediate payment of maintenance
towards the well-being and maintenance of his daughter w.e.f. January, 2024
within a month from today. This is without prejudice.
6. However, the respondent is directed to appear in person and produce the
certified copies of statement of accounts w.e.f. January, 2022 till date before
this Court.
7. At this stage, as requested by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
respondent shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Courts for sale of the property. However,
the payment of maintenance shall be made, as aforesaid, without any
default.”
(emphasis added)
th
15. Subsequently, on 11
November 2024, Mr. Anand Chichra, Advocate
appearing for respondent/husband, sought discharge from representing the
respondent.

16. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate, represents the petitioner/wife
and, in the background of these facts and circumstances, presses for the
prayers stated in CM APPL.65753/2024 , which are extracted as under for
reference:
“ (a) Direct that the Respondent be arrested, and sentence the Respondent to
imprisonment for committing contempt and wilful and deliberate
disobedience of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court;
(b) Warrants of arrest be issued for the Respondent so that he can be
punished by this Hon’ble Court for committing contempt,
(c) The property of the Respondent at flat bearing no. H-105, Raheja
Atharva, Sector-109, Gurugram, Haryana be attached and be transferred to
the Petitioner / minor (as was also proposed by the Respondent by the email
dated 20.04.2024;
(d) Direct Mr. Richard Toone, 31st Floor, 40 Bank Street, London, United
Kingdom, E145NR, email ID: [email protected]
, Telephone
Number:02075161500, to file the complete statement of account from
01.01.2022 till date of the following bank accounts:
i . bank account bearing no. 70943584 (with Barclays Bank) in the
name of GSM Traders Limited,
ii. bank account bearing no. 53514196 (with Barclays Bank) in the
name of GSM Traders Property Company Limited, and
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 27 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

iii . bank account bearing no. 51816262 (with Starling Bank) in the
name of Cruises Limited, which is a company of the Respondent.”

rd
17. He has further brought to attention an E-mail dated 3
November 2024,
which had been issued by the respondent/husband to his lawyers including
Mr. Anand Chichra, Advocate. This communication had been produced by
Mr. Anand Chichra, Advocate while seeking discharge from the Court.

18. Effectively he has stated in the said E-mail that he is considering
withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts concerning the case
pending in the Family Court and the High Court of Delhi, and stated that he
will no longer be participating in this case or any other legal proceeding in
India. It has been stated that respondent is a British citizen and overseas
citizen of India.

th
19. Yet another E-mail dated 28
April 2024 was exchanged between the
respondent and petitioner. Respondent/husband, in this E-mail exchanged,
inter alia, states as under:
“You are well aware that I have nothing more left to offer. The only
asset left to my name is the flat in Gurgaon, which I am prepared to
transfer to you and Meher. If this proposal is not agreeable to you,
then you could instead handover the title documents and keys to me,
so that I can then sell the flat and pay the maintenance as directed by
the court.”

th
20. Attention has also been drawn to order dated 28
January 2025 in
MAT.APPL (FC) 39/2025, wherein directions have been passed by the
Division Bench of this Court to the respondent/husband, to maintain status
quo in the title and possession of the property and to restrain from creating
any third party rights.

21. In these circumstances, it was necessary to extract in extenso what has
transpired previously in these proceedings to justify that the
respondent/husband is wilfully avoiding compliance with the orders which he
is legally bound to comply with. His mere statement that he does not wish to
participate in the proceedings in the Indian jurisdiction has no legal basis
and is completely unmerited.

22. In fact, this nature of an assertion is an affront to the Court and its
majesty and the directions which have been passed by this Court previously.
Any non-compliance of the same would make a mockery of the directions
passed by this Family Courts as well as this Constitutional Court.

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 28 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

23. Accordingly, the Court finds the prayers made in the said application
merited and, therefore, directs as under:

a) The flat bearing No. H 105, Raheja Atharva, Sector 109 Gurugram,
Haryana will stand attached and the keys of the same, which are in the
possession of the petitioner/wife, shall be deposited with the Registrar
General of this Court and shall be kept in a sealed cover. For maintenance
and the check of the flat, petitioner/wife shall be at liberty to file an
application, seeking prior permission of the Court.
b) To facilitate further progress of proceedings before this Court, Mr.
st
Richard Toone, [Address: 31
Floor, 40 Bank Street, London, United
Kingdom, E145NR, email ID: [email protected], Telephone
Number:02075161500] will disclose to this Court (addressed to the Registrar
General of this Court), complete statement of account from 01.01.2022 till
date of the following bank accounts, which shall be kept by the Registry in a
sealed cover, and presented to this Court on the day next fixed:
i. Bank account bearing no. 70943584 (with Barclays Bank) in the
name of GSM Traders Limited,
ii. Bank account bearing no. 53514196 (with Barclays Bank) in the
name of GSM Traders Property Company Limited, and
iii. Bank account bearing no. 51816262 (with Starling Bank) in the
name of Cruises Limited, which is a company of the Respondent.

c) Notice be issued to Mr. Richard Toone on steps being taken by petitioner/wife
and through the Indian Consulate at the Indian High Commission, London, with a
copy of this order.

24. The residual prayers in the said application shall be kept pending
for further assessment.
th
25. Re-notify on 10
3September 2025.
26. Dasti.
27. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court .”

18. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application bearing No. CM
APPL.-34652/2025 seeking issuance of a Red Corner Notice.
19. Thereafter, on 18.02.2026, this Court passed the following order:–

“1. None appears for the respondent no.1.
2. The present case discloses a history of flagrant breach and
wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and by the
concerned Family Court . The relevant facts and circumstances
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 29 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

have been narrated in detail in the order dated 06.05.2025. The
findings rendered therein are as under:-

3. In view of the factual directions set out in the order dated
06.05.2025, the respondent no.1 is held guilty of committing
contempt of the orders passed by this Court under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.
4. List for orders on sentencing on 09.03.2026.
5. In the meantime, issue fresh notice to Mr. Richard Toone to
comply with the directions contained in paragraph 23-B of the
order dated 06.05.2025.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to serve Mr. Richard Toone through
E-mail and through all other electronic modes.”

20. Subsequently, this court vide order dated 09.03.2026 observed as
under –
“1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has been heard at
some length.
2. List for remaining arguments on 18.03.2026.
3. Fresh notice was directed to be issued to Mr Richard Toone on
18.02.2026. On the said date, he was also directed to comply with
the directions contained in paragraph 23-B of the order dated
06.05.2025 passed in the present proceedings. However, there is
no appearance on behalf of Mr. Richard Toone.
4. The respondent also continues to evade the present proceedings
pursuant to his e-mail dated 03.11.2024 (filed as Annexure A3 to
the CM APPL. 65753/2024). The said E-mail records the
statement of the respondent, which reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 30 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

“I hereby declare that I am withdrawing from the
jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, and I will no longer
be participating in this case or any related legal
proceedings in India.”
5. In the circumstances, this Court is considering the sentence to
be awarded to the respondent no.1, in the absence of the
respondent
. Let a copy of the today’s proceedings be served on
the respondent through E-mail. The respondent is once again
called upon to appear on the next date of hearing, and address
arguments, inter alia, on the aspect of sentencing.”

21. It is apparent that respondent no. 1 has failed to comply with the

directions issued vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Guardianship
Petition bearing GP No. 02/2022, as well as the order dated 28.11.2023
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal bearing MAT APP.
(FC) 336/2023, by failing to pay a sum of Rs. 1.40 lakhs per month to the
petitioner as an interim measure intended to safeguard the interests and
welfare of the minor daughter.
22. Further, the orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings
clearly demonstrate that respondent no. 1 has not only failed to comply with
the orders dated 09.10.2023 and 28.11.2023, but has also knowingly and
wilfully disobeyed the orders passed in the present proceedings as well.
23. Vide order dated 08.04.2024 passed in the present proceedings,
respondent no. 1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the
petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of the said order.
However, respondent no. 1 has failed to comply with the aforesaid direction
and has paid only a meagre sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner. The same
is evident from the affidavit dated 27.04.2024 filed by the petitioner, which,
inter alia , states as under:–
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 31 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

24. This Court, vide order dated 19.07.2024, observed that the respondent
no. 1 was “putting forth lame excuses to avoid the payment of
maintenance.”
25. Further, vide order dated 12.08.2024, this Court, after recording the
statement of the petitioner that “as on 24.07.2023, there is sufficient balance
in the bank account of the respondent and he has the financial means to
make the payment towards maintenance but is deliberately avoiding
compliance,” directed respondent no. 1 to “make the immediate payment of
maintenance towards the well-being and maintenance of his daughter w.e.f.
January, 2024 within a month from today. This is without prejudice.” The
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 32 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

Court also directed respondent no. 1 to appear in person and produce
certified copies of his statements of account w.e.f. January 2022 till date of
the order.
26. Despite the aforesaid directions, no compliance has been made by
respondent no. 1.
27. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 addressed an email dated
03.11.2024 to his counsel, whereby he expressly refused to appear and
participate in proceedings before courts in India. The relevant portion of the
said email is reproduced as under –


xxx xxx xxx

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 33 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

28. Consequently, a notice of default was issued to the respondent no.1 on
11.11.2024. The order dated 11.11.2024 is reproduced as under –
“1. At the very outset, Sh. Anand Chichra, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that respondent has already transmitted
communication through e-mail instructing him not to represent him in
any matter, including the present one.
2. In view of the above, Sh. Anand Chichra, learned counsel for the
respondent stands discharged.
3. However, keeping in mind the specific directions appearing in the
previous order, let notice of default be sent to respondent, returnable
nd
on 22
January, 2025.”

29. Further, despite the specific directions contained in paragraph 5 of the
order dated 09.03.2026 passed in the present proceedings, respondent no. 1
has failed to appear before this Court and address arguments, inter alia, on
the aspect of sentencing.
30. The petitioner has made a compelling submission to the effect that

after entering appearance in the Guardianship Proceedings on 08.06.2022
and after securing a reference of the disputes to mediation, the respondent
no. 1 (even while the mediation proceedings were still pending), proceeded
to initiate voluntary liquidation proceedings in respect of his own
companies, namely, GSM Traders Limited and GSM Traders Property
Company Limited, despite the said companies possessing profits, assets and
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 34 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

savings. This cast a serious doubt on the bona fides of respondent no. 1.
31. It is further pointed out that even after discharge of all liabilities,
GSM Traders Property Company Limited retained a surplus amount of
£144,029.27 (approximately INR 1.51 crores) as on 24.07.2023. Reliance
has been placed on the following by the petitioner -


Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 35 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

32. While the above is subject to appropriate explanation or clarification/s
to be given by respondent no. 1, what is inexplicable and unacceptable is the
outright refusal of the respondent no. 1 to participate in these proceedings. It
is simply not permissible for the respondent no. 1 to evade/ avoid these and
other related matrimonial proceedings in which very serious allegations have
been made. The complete evasion/avoidance of these proceedings by the
respondent no. 1 especially in the context of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, exacerbates allegations of wilful disobedience of order/s
passed by this Court. The conduct of the respondent no. 1 is demonstrative
of absolute disdain and disregard of due process, and of the sanctity of these
proceedings.
33. The aforesaid facts and the conduct of respondent no. 1 clearly
establish wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the
aforementioned orders. The respondent no. 1 is in flagrant breach of, and has
shown complete disregard for, the orders passed by the learned Family
Court, the Division Bench of this Court, as well as this Court. His conduct
has, in effect, made a mockery of the judicial process and strikes at the very
authority and dignity of the Court.
34. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘Civil
Contempt’ as “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court .”
35. Section 10 of the said act provides that “ Every High Court shall have
and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance
with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 36 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself ”.
36. Section 12 of the act prescribes the punishment for contempt of court.
The same reads as under:
“12. Punishment for contempt of court.—(1) Save as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of
court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, or with both:

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment
awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction
of the court.
Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the
ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it
bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that
specified in sub-section(1) for any contempt either in respect of
itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a
person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers
that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of
imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to
simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for
such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of
any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who,
at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the
company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of
the contempt and the punishment may be enforced with the leave of
the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render
any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the
contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 37 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where
the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a
company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed
with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect
on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of
the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer
shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the
detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or
other officer.
Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),—

(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or
other association of individuals; and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”

37. The legal position in this regard stands authoritatively settled. In
Sonali Bhatia v. Abhivansh Narang , 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5114, a
Division bench of this Court has observed as under –
“31. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear to us that the
Respondent is guilty of intentionally and deliberately violating, and not
complying with the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Family Court
and order dated 11.02.2021 passed by this Court.
32. More than adequate indulgence has been shown to the Respondent,
but he chooses to be adamant and obstinate. The actions/omissions of
the Respondent in choosing to show complete disregard to the orders of
the Court cannot be countenanced. If such action is permitted, it will
lead to anarchy and the Rule of Law would become a casualty. The
orders of the Courts would be taken lightly and breached at the own
sweet will of the individual concerned. There has been no effort on the
part of the respondent to comply with the aforesaid orders. If, he had
acted bona fide, he would have paid or deposited, at least, a portion of
the outstanding amount to the petitioner. However, the Respondent has
chosen not to pay a penny. It is the dignity and majesty of the court
which needs to be preserved. The judiciary as an institution has
garnered faith of the common masses as a trusted institution only
because judicial orders are enforced, in an appropriate case, even at
the pain of contempt. The faith posed by the people in the judiciary has
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 38 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

to be protected in the interest of society, and also to meet the ends of
justice.
33. The Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam
Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1 dealt with civil contempt, wherein the Court
observed as under:
“ 17. Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act defines ‘civil
contempt’ and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or
wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. ‘Wilful’ means
an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally
and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or
with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires
to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to
disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil
intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to
constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a
nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in
normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary
effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon
any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has
to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case……”
34. It has been time and gain reiterated by the Supreme Court that the
orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in
appeal/revision. The onus is on the party to establish and satisfy the
court that the order is null and void, and therefore not executable or
enforceable. However, in the present case, the respondent has
withdrawn his appeal against the order of the Family Court. Thus, there
is no question of his establishing that the order passed by the Family
Court granting maintenance to the petitioner, or the order passed by
this Court in the respondent’ matrimonial appeal was null and void.
Even otherwise, they cannot be considered as null and void, since they
were passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction after hearing the
respondent herein. The Respondent has not shown any regard towards
the majesty of the court by obeying its orders. He has shown no remorse
or regret for non-compliance of the aforesaid orders. If there is wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree direction, order writ or other
process of a court, or wilful breach of undertaking given to the court,
the contempt court shall take note of such violation, that needs to be
punished. The wilful disobedience by the contemnor undermines the
dignity and authority of the Courts and outrages the majesty of law.
In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, the Court has
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 39 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

delineated the contours for initiating civil contempt action. The Court
observed thus:
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be
established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word
“wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires
looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his
actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. “Wilful”
means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing
therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or
unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not
encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be
done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or
stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly,
heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done
negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on
his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such
disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances
under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with
the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or
sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a
degree of default or misconduct.”
35. The conduct of the respondent taken note of hereinabove shows that
he has tried to act over smart with the Court by concealing his true
income and expenditure, and the channels into which his incomes are
flowing, and the manner in which they have been utilised. He has not
come clean despite grant of repeated opportunities. His conduct shows
that he his defiantly disobeying the orders of the Court despite being
called upon to comply with them repeatedly.
36. The Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar
Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 observed the object of
punishment in the case of civil contempt, and also remarked upon the
jurisdiction exercised by the contempt court, to protect the
administration of justice from maligned. The Court observed thus:
34. The object of punishment being both curative and corrective
these coercions are meant to assist an individual complainant to
enforce his remedy and there is also an element of public policy
for punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice
would be undermined if the order of any court of law is to be
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 40 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

disregarded with impunity. Under some circumstances,
compliance of the order may be secured without resort to
coercion, through the contempt power. For example,
disobedience of an order to pay a sum of money may be
effectively countered by attaching the earnings of the
contemner . In the same manner, committing the person of the
defaulter to prison for failure to comply with an order of specific
performance of conveyance of property, may be met also by the
court directing that the conveyance be completed by an appointed
person. Disobedience of an undertaking may in the like manner
be enforced through process other than committal to prison as for
example where the breach of undertaking is to deliver possession
of property in a landlord tenant dispute. Apart from punishing the
contemner the Court to maintain the Majesty of Law may direct
the police force to be utilised for recover of possession and
burden the contemner with costs, exemplary or otherwise.
xxxxx
42. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised
sparingly and with caution, whenever an act adversely effects the
administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or
tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This
jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of
adversely effects the Majesty of Law or dignity of the courts. The
purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and
dignity of the Courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction
combining “the jury, the judge and the hangman” and it is so
because the court is not adjudicating upon any claim between
litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the
dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration
of justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the
community it is imperative that the authority of courts should
not be imperiled and there should be no unjustifiable
interference in the administration of justice. It is a matter
between the court and the contemner and third parties cannot
intervene. it is exercised in a summary manner in aid of the
administration of justice, the majesty of law and the dignity of the
courts. No such act can be permitted which may have the
tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness and
impartiality of the administration of justice.”


38. Having considered the above this Court is satisfied that the conduct of
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 41 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

respondent no. 1, leaves no manner of doubt that his disobedience is
deliberate and calculated. Despite repeated opportunities and indulgence, he
has chosen not to comply with the directions of this Court. His conduct
demonstrates complete disregard for judicial authority and warrants the
invocation of this Court’s contempt jurisdiction.
39. Accordingly, as already recorded in the order dated 09.03.2026, this
Court proceeds to sentence respondent no. 1 in his absence.
40. Consequently, respondent no. 1 is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for
a period of seven days.
41. Having regard to the fact that respondent no. 1 has refused to submit
to the jurisdiction of Indian courts and has deliberately abstained from
appearing in the present proceedings, the petitioner is seeking issuance of
Red Corner Notice vide application bearing CM APPL.-34652/2025
42. For the aforesaid purposes it is relevant to refer to Article 45 of the
Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization –
INTERPOL. The same is reproduced as under –
“
Article 45
All bodies representing the countries mentioned in Appendix I shall be
deemed to be Members of the Organization unless they declare through
the appropriate governmental authority that they cannot accept this
Constitution. Such a declaration should be made within six months of
the date of the coming into force of the present Constitution.”
“ APPENDIX 1:
LIST OF STATES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE
45 OF THE CONSTITUTION SHALL APPLY
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 42 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia,
Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eire, Finland, France, Federal German
Republic, Greece, Guatemala, India , Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico,
Monaco, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Norway,
Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Saar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan,
Surinam, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.”
43. It is relevant to note that, in terms of Article 45 of the Constitution of
the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), read with
Appendix I thereto, both India and the United Kingdom are Member States
of INTERPOL. Thus, the mechanism of international police cooperation
through INTERPOL is available and can be duly invoked in the present
case.
44. It is also apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Interpol’s
Rules on the Processing of Data, the same are reproduced as under –
“Article 82: Purpose of red notices
Red notices are published at the
request of a National Central Bureau or an international entity with
powers of investigation and prosecution in criminal matters in order to
seek the location of a wanted person and his/her detention, arrest or
restriction of movement for the purpose of extradition, surrender, or
similar lawful action.”
“Article 83: Specific conditions for publication of red notices
(1) Minimum criteria
(a) Red notices may be published only if the following cumulative
criteria are met:
(i) The offence concerned is a serious ordinary-law crime.
Red notices may not be published for the following categories of
offences:
- offences that in various countries raise controversial issues relating to
behavioural or cultural norms;
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 43 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

- offences relating to family/private matters;
- offences originating from a violation of laws or regulations of an
administrative nature or deriving from private disputes, unless the
criminal activity is aimed at facilitating a serious crime or is suspected
of being connected to organized crime.
The General Secretariat shall keep, update and share with National
Central Bureaus and international entities a non-exhaustive list of
specific offences that fall within the above categories.
(ii) Penalty threshold:
- if the person is sought for prosecution, the conduct constituting an
offence is punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least
two years or a more serious penalty;
- if the person is sought to serve a sentence, he/she is sentenced to at
least six months of imprisonment and/or there is at least six months of
the sentence remaining to be served
.
(iii) The request is of interest for the purposes of international police
cooperation.
(b) The General Secretariat may decide to publish a red notice where
the criteria in (i) and/or (ii) above are not met if, following consultation
with the requesting National Central Bureau or international entity, it
considers that publication of the requested red notice would be of
particular importance to international police cooperation.
(c) Several offences: if the request includes several offences, the red
notice may be published for all offences that meet INTERPOL’s Rules
provided that at least one offence meets the above criteria.
(2) Minimum data
(a) Identity particulars:
Red notices may be published only when sufficient identifiers have been
provided. Sufficient identifiers will be considered to include at least one
of the following two combinations of identifiers:
(i) family name, forename, sex, date of birth (at least the year) and one
of the following identifiers:
- physical description; or
- DNA profile; or
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 44 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

- fingerprints; or
- data contained in identity documents (e.g. passport, national identity
card).
(ii) photograph of good quality with some additional data (e.g. alias,
name of the parent(s), further physical description, DNA profile,
fingerprints, etc.).
(b) Judicial data:
Red notices may be published only when sufficient judicial data has
been provided. Sufficient judicial data will be considered to include at
least:
(i) summary of facts of the case, which shall provide a succinct and
clear description of the criminal activities of the wanted person,
including the time and location of the alleged criminal activity; and
(ii) charge(s); and
(iii) law(s) covering the offence (whenever possible, and subject to
national law or the rules governing the operation of the international
entity, the requesting National Central Bureau or international entity
shall provide the wording of the relevant penal provision(s)); and
(iv) maximum penalty possible, sentence imposed, or sentence
remaining to be served; and
(v) reference to a valid arrest warrant or judicial decision having the
same effect (whenever possible, and subject to national law or the rules
governing the operation of the international entity, the requesting
National Central Bureau or international entity shall provide a copy of
the arrest warrant or judicial decision).”
45. Articles 82 and 83 of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data
provide the framework governing the issuance of Red Corner Notices.
Article 82 clarifies that Red Notices are issued for the purpose of locating a
wanted person and securing their arrest or detention with a view to
extradition or similar lawful action. Article 83 prescribes the minimum
criteria and data requirements for such issuance.
46. A perusal of Article 83 indicates that the minimum criteria for
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 45 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

issuance of a Red Corner Notice stand satisfied in the present case.
Moreover, the exceptions contemplated under Article 83(1)(a)(i) are not
attracted, as contempt of court and the punishment imposed herein cannot be
characterised as a purely family or private dispute.
47. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the order dated 03.04.2017
passed by the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No. 106 of 2016.
The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under –
“2. This Contempt Petition is instituted alleging breach of the judgment
and decree dated 5.8.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Thane (for short, 'trial Court) in Petition No.A-352/2014. By that order,
the trial Court allowed the petition instituted by the petitioner herein
under section 13(1)(1- a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short,
'Act) and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and first
respondent solemnized on 7.2.2010 by decree of divorce under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Act, from the date of the order. Respondent No.1 is
directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner
from date of the petition i.e. 7.10.2014. Respondent No.1 is further
directed to hand over custody of son Harshad to the petitioner within
one month from the date of the order.
xxx
6. Mr. Dushyant Kumar submitted that if the Court is of the opinion that
respondent No.1 has committed breach of the trial Court's order dated
5.8.2015, the Court may consider passing appropriate order in terms of
prayer clause (d) of the Petition.
xxx
10. In view thereof, stand over to 2.5.2017. Till next date, there shall be
ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (d) so as to ensure that
respondent No.1 brings the child Harshad in Mumbai. Prayer clause (d)
reads thus :
"(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 to 4 to
take all possible steps for issuance of Red corner notice to the
Respondent no.1 & Yellow corner notice for the child Harshad,"”

Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 46 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

48. In Paulami Apte & Anr. v. Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed
Kassem & Ors ., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2018/2020 vide order
dated 09.03.2022, the Supreme Court has observed as under -
“2 The first respondent, despite the order of the High Court requiring
him to maintain custody of the child at Pune for a period of eight weeks
from the date of the judgment dated 13 January 2020, failed to comply
with the order and, by an email dated 16 February 2020, stated that he
had left India with the child. Hence, though the period of eight weeks
would have ended on 27 March 2020, the first respondent, in breach of
the order of the High Court, left the country even before that date.
xxx
5 In this backdrop, the failure of the first respondent to abide by the
terms and conditions imposed by the High Court would not only invite
action in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, but, in addition, this
Court must take a serious note of the conduct of the first respondent
who has taken away the child in an attempt to foreclose the exercise of
the jurisdiction of this Court and remedies available to the petitioners.
6 We direct that the Central Bureau of Investigation be impleaded as a
party to these proceedings. Notice shall issue to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The CBI shall issue a Red Corner Notice to secure the
presence of the first respondent – Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed
Kassem, who is a foreign national.”
49. Subsequently, in the same case, the Supreme Court vide order dated
06.04.2022, observed as under –
“1 In pursuance of the previous order, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) has submitted that with the permission of the
Court, CBI would ensure that appropriate notices are issued both in
respect of the first respondent and the minor child.
2 We consider it appropriate to permit the CBI to do so having regard
to the fact that the minor child was secreted away from the jurisdiction
of the competent court in India in violation of the directions of the
court.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 47 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

3 CBI shall coordinate with Interpol so that appropriate notices are
issued in respect of the first respondent, Khaled Kamal Hussein
Mohamed Kassem and minor child, Kian Kassem.
4 List the Special Leave Petition on 12 July 2022.”
50. In view of the above, it would be appropriate to invoke the
mechanism of a Red Corner Notice to secure the presence of Respondent
No. 1 and to ensure enforcement of the sentence imposed.
51. Accordingly, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) [impleaded as
respondent no. 2 in CM Appl. No. 34652/2025 (filed by the Petitioner
seeking issuance of a Red Corner Notice)] is directed to make an appropriate
request to INTERPOL for issuance of a Red Corner Notice against
respondent no. 1, in terms of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data,
for the purposes of locating, arresting, and detaining him, and for informing
the CBI as well as this Court of his whereabouts.
52. This Court further directs the CBI to take appropriate steps for

issuance of a Diffusion under Section 4 (Article 97) of the Interpol Rules on
the Processing of Data, for the purposes of locating/tracing, apprehending,
and detaining respondent no. 1.
53. Article 97 of the Interpol Rules on the Processing of Data is
reproduced hereunder:–
Article 97: Diffusions system
(1) The diffusions system consists of standardized requests for
cooperation and alerts each corresponding to a specific purpose:
(a) to arrest, detain or restrict the movements of a convicted or
accused person;
(b) to locate and trace;
(c) to obtain additional information;
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 48 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12

(d) for identification purposes;
(e) to warn about a person’s criminal activities;
(f) for information purposes.
(2) The conditions for sending a diffusion are the same as the
general conditions for recording data in the Organization’s police
databases.
(3) The General Secretariat shall submit any proposal to create a
new category of diffusion to the Executive Committee for approval.
To justify its request, the General Secretariat shall provide:
(a) the reasons that led it to propose this creation, as well as the
financial implications of such a creation;
(b) the specific purpose of this new category of diffusion, the
conditions for its circulation as well as the type of data it will
contain;
(c) the outcome of any tests conducted by the General Secretariat;
(d) the opinion of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s
Files, if the new category of diffusion contains personal data or is
linked to such data.
54. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) is directed to
intimate the concerned police authorities/CBI to take necessary steps to
secure the arrest of respondent no. 1 upon his arrival in India, so as to ensure
execution of the sentence imposed by this Court.
55. The concerned respondents are directed to prepare arrest warrants and
committal warrants against the contemnor forthwith.
56. List for further consideration on 27.07.2026.

SACHIN DATTA, J
JULY 1, 2026/ sv
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 384/2024 Page 49 of 49
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:02.07.2026
10:50:12