High Court May Issue Red Corner Notice to Enforce Contempt Sentence Against Absconding Non-Resident Contemnor

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Respondent No. 1’s failure to comply with maintenance orders and his subsequent refusal to participate in court proceedings constitute wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The court held

The court held Respondent No. 1 guilty of civil contempt

It also directed

He was sentenced in absentia to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000

The court directed the attachment of the Respondent's property in Gurugram (Flat H-105, Raheja Atharva)

The court directed the CBI to request INTERPOL to issue a Red Corner Notice and a "Diffusion" against Respondent No. 1 for his arrest and detention

The FRRO was directed to intimate police authorities to secure his arrest upon arrival in India

Case listed for further consideration on 27.07.2026

01Facts

The Petitioner (wife) and Respondent No. 1 (husband) married in 2005. Respondent No. 1 is a British citizen and OCI card holder residing in the UK

¶ 3-4

Following a guardianship petition for their minor daughter, the Family Court directed Respondent No. 1 to pay ₹1.40 lakhs per month as interim maintenance

¶ 11

This was affirmed with slight modification by a Division Bench on 28.11.2023

¶ 12

The Respondent defaulted on payments from January 2022 onwards

¶ 7, 10

During contempt proceedings, Respondent No. 1 initiated voluntary winding up of his UK companies (GSM Traders Ltd. and GSM Traders Property Co. Ltd.) despite holding surplus assets

¶ 15(c), 31

On 03.11.2024, the Respondent sent an email to his counsel declaring his withdrawal from the jurisdiction of Indian Courts and refusal to participate in further proceedings

¶ 17, 27

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Respondent No. 1’s failure to comply with maintenance orders and his subsequent refusal to participate in court proceedings constitute wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

¶ 21, 33

ii.2. Whether the court can sentence a contemnor in absentia and invoke international mechanisms like INTERPOL’s Red Corner Notice to enforce a sentence involving a foreign resident

¶ 39, 50

03Law Applied

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defining "civil contempt" as wilful disobedience of any court order or breach of an undertaking

¶ 34

Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 10 to punish contempt of subordinate courts and Section 12 for sentencing

¶ 35-36

The court relied on Sonali Bhatia v. Abhivansh Narang (2021) to emphasize that disregard for court orders to preserve the majesty of law warrants punishment even at the pain of contempt

¶ 37

Principles from Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha (2003) and Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj (2014) were used to define "wilful" as a deliberate, conscious, and calculated action with full knowledge of consequences

¶ 37

For international enforcement, the court applied Articles 82, 83, and 97 of the INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data and Article 45 of the INTERPOL Constitution

¶ 42, 44, 53

Paulami Apte v. Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem (2022) regarding Red Corner Notices in matrimonial/custody defaults

¶ 48-49

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2 Section 10 Section 12

04Reasoning

The court found the Respondent’s conduct to be a "flagrant breach" and "wilful disobedience"

¶ 19

It rejected the Respondent’s plea of financial incapacity, noting evidence of surplus funds (£144,029.27) in his liquidated companies and his failure to disclose complete bank statements despite specific court directions

¶ 15, 31

The court observed that the Respondent’s email dated 03.11.2024, expressly withdrawing from Indian jurisdiction, was an "affront to the Court and its majesty" and a "mockery of the judicial process"

¶ 17, 33

By failing to appear for sentencing despite notice, the Respondent’s actions moved beyond mere default into calculated evasion

¶ 20, 38

The court determined that since the contempt involved a sentence of six months (meeting the INTERPOL threshold under Article 83(a)(ii)), and because contempt is not a "private dispute" but an offense against the administration of justice, international cooperation was legally permissible

¶ 44-46