JHILMIL BRECKENRIDGE Vs. DOUGLAS BRECKENRIDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inasmuch as the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.02.2012 delivered by a learned single Judge of this court whereby the appellant has been found guilty of committing contempt of court. In particular, the learned single Judge found the appellant guilty of disobeying the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the learned Guardianship court by allegedly removing the child Liam from the alleged custody of the respondent and by the appellant taking the said child into her own custody. The learned single Judge has also held that the appellant was guilty of contempt of court as she had abused the process of the court, calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly administration of justice. He also found that the appellant had made a mockery of the judicial process.

(2.) In addition, the learned single Judge directed the appellant to purge the contempt by forthwith restoring the custody of the child Liam to the respondent. The learned single Judge, apart from the contempt proceedings, also passed an order holding that the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge in the proceedings initiated by the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the 'D.V.Act'), insofar as they dealt with the aspect of custody in respect of Liam, to be null and void. Thereupon, the learned single Judge called upon the appellant to show cause as to why she should not be punished for contempt of court.

(3.) Apart from this, the learned single Judge also cautioned the Advocate who had represented the appellant in the lower court for minding his conduct in future and he was also advised to adhere to the highest standards of professionalism, ethics and integrity as an Advocate. Though, in the present appeal we are not concerned with the conduct of the said Advocate.