SC sentences NRI to 6-month jail for defying orders to bring back his child

The Supreme Court has sentenced a non-resident Indian (NRI) to six months in jail and a Rs 25 lakh fine for defying the previous order to bring back his child here on July 1, 2022.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka also directed the Union government and the CBI to take all possible steps to secure the presence of Naveen Sharma in India.

Acting on a plea by his wife, the court noted the man has not shown any remorse even after three months of having been guilty of contempt of court.

"The acts and omissions of the contemnor...amount to both civil and criminal contempt. This calls for strict action against him," the bench held.

In fact, he never had any intention of bringing the child back to India, it said.

In the case, the court said the contemnor has shown scant respect to the judicial proceedings pending in this court.

He has defied assurance given to this court that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this court, the bench said.

"In fact, due to the misrepresentation made by the contemnor, the Foreign Court has not honoured the principle of comity of Courts. The act of denying the fact that he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this court and his conduct of opposing the request for the grant of mirroring order amounts to interference with the administration of justice and obstructing the administration of justice," the bench said.

For his part, the man claimed he had acted in the best interests of the minor child who held a USA passport. He contended as the child was subjected to sexual abuse while he was staying with the petitioner in India, a forensic investigation is in progress in the United States of America (USA), and therefore, the child cannot be brought back to India.

The court, however, held the man showed scant regard to the orders passed by it.

"The contemnor always acted contrary to the statement and pleaded in the Courts in the USA that he has not subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this court," the bench said.