LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022 INSC)

Contempt Petition (Civil) · 2022 INSC 1161Decided 3 Nov 2022
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021
Uday Umesh Lalit · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · P.S. Narasimha

Background

This is the sentencing order following the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated 11.07.2022 convicting Perry Kansagra of both civil and criminal contempt of court. The background: Kansagra and Smriti (an Indian citizen) married in 2007 and had a son, Aditya, who lived with Smriti in Delhi. After protracted custody litigation, the Supreme Court in October 2020 granted Kansagra custody of Aditya to relocate him to Kenya, but only subject to protective conditions, including obtaining a "mirror order" from a Kenyan court replicating the Indian directions, filing undertakings, depositing Rs. 1 crore, and guaranteeing Smriti's visitation and video-call access. The Court later found Kansagra had never intended to honour these conditions: he made false representations to the Kenyan court that Indian courts had not sought Aditya's consent and that the Supreme Court's decision was unenforceable, and thereafter did not comply with the visitation and access directions. This conduct led to his conviction for contempt, and this judgment decides the punishment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Kansagra had deliberately and with clear design given false undertakings and affidavits to the Indian courts merely to secure custody of Aditya, with no genuine intention of complying, and had thereafter misrepresented facts to a foreign court to defeat the Indian court's authority, constituting both civil contempt (willful disobedience of court orders/undertakings) and criminal contempt (interference with the administration of justice and lowering the court's authority). Relying on its inherent constitutional contempt power under Article 129 (which the Court held is not confined by statutory limits in the Contempt of Courts Act), and noting Kansagra showed no remorse, the Court sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 12.5 lakh for civil contempt, and a further six months' simple imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 12.5 lakh for criminal contempt, with both sentences to run consecutively (i.e., one year total, plus default imprisonment if fines are unpaid). The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to secure his presence to serve the sentence, and the total fine of Rs. 25 lakh was directed to be paid to Smriti Kansagra.

Lesson Learnt

Giving false assurances and undertakings to an Indian court to obtain a favourable order (and then acting in bad faith to defeat that very order once it is in hand, including by misleading a foreign court) is treated by the Supreme Court as a serious contempt attracting real imprisonment and substantial fines, not a mere technical breach; the Court's contempt power under Article 129 of the Constitution is not limited by the six-month cap or other restrictions found in ordinary contempt legislation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Family Law

Family LawDelhi High Court

Punam vs. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Court upheld the validity of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules' eviction provision, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings that such tribunals may order eviction where necessary to protect a senior citizen, and held the rule validly covers daughters-in-law as well as sons and daughters. It further held that eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Rules are legally independent of Domestic Violence Act maintenance proceedings, one does not need to await the other, and that the senior citizen's right to a peaceful life in her own property outweighed the daughter-in-law's claim, especially since the daughter-in-law had her own separate residence and income. The writ petition was dismissed.

Decided 30 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawDelhi High Court

Nav Ratan Sharma vs. Chetna And Anr & Anr.

The High Court held its revisional powers are narrow and don't permit re-weighing evidence absent a clear legal or jurisdictional error, finding none here. The Family Court was entitled to draw an adverse inference given the husband's contradictory statements, concealed bank account, and lack of documentary proof for his claimed salary. The Court also noted that even accepting his figure, the resulting difference in maintenance would be only about Rs. 2,500 total per month: too minor to justify interference. The revision petition was dismissed.

Decided 28 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

Shikha v. State of Odisha

The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, with the husband paying the agreed permanent alimony in full. Applying its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and following its own precedents on irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Shilpa Sailesh and Rinku Baheti), the Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent, dissolving the marriage solemnised on 04-12-2016. It also quashed all pending civil and criminal cases between the parties and directed that neither side file any fresh cases against the other, disposing of both transfer petitions.

Decided 28 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

'R' v. 'E' & Anr.

The CBI's detailed report, based on witness examinations, CCTV footage analysis, and psychiatric/psychological evaluation of the child, concluded that the allegations were not reliable, were contradicted by other evidence, and appeared linked to the ongoing custody dispute rather than genuine abuse. The Supreme Court accepted this report, quashed the FIR as an abuse of process, and also quashed a related, older FIR against the mother. It confirmed that custody of the child should remain with the father, applying the "best interest of the child" principle. Recognising a broader pattern of the POCSO Act being misused as a tactic in matrimonial/custody disputes, the Court laid down specific safeguards to be followed whenever a POCSO allegation is made by one parent against another parent (or a family member) during a pending matrimonial dispute, including caution before arrest, and closer judicial scrutiny of such complaints, and directed that these safeguards be circulated to all criminal courts and police stations in the country.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty v. Suman Sankar Bhunia

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. After speaking with the children in chambers, the Court made its earlier stay of the High Court's custody order absolute and allowed the mother to relocate the children to the United Kingdom for schooling for the present. She must produce the children before any court when directed. The appeals will be heard in January 2027.

Decided 23 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, restating that anti-suit injunctions are an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly. The party seeking one must show the foreign proceedings are oppressive/vexatious or in a forum non conveniens, and that refusal would defeat the ends of justice, per the settled principles in Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket. Applying these principles, the Court found the UK Family Court was in fact the more convenient forum, since both parties had genuinely established their matrimonial home, residence, and financial life in London for years, giving the UK court substantial connecting factors to the dispute. The husband's argument that a prospective foreign divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would be unenforceable in India under Section 13 CPC was held to be speculative and premature, since the UK proceedings had not yet concluded and the foreign court's own jurisdiction was itself still under adjudication, relying on its own precedent in Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, which similarly declined to grant anti-suit relief merely because a foreign court might apply a ground for divorce not recognised in India. The Court noted that although the UK court had since passed a conditional divorce decree during the appeal's pendency (which the Supreme Court had separately stayed), that development was outside the scope of this appeal, which was confined only to examining the validity of the original 2025 anti-suit injunction. Finding the High Court's vacation of that injunction legally correct, the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal, while leaving both parties free to raise any grounds regarding the later UK divorce order before the appropriate forum.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case