2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have four sons. The petitioner has preferred a divorce petition against the respondent.
3. The petitioner filed a custody petition before the Guardianship Judge, Saket, New Delhi. In the petition the petitioner stated that he resides with his three elder children at C-87, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, of whom he has custody, whereas the respondent resides with her parents at 68, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi. According to the petitioner, the respondent abandoned the matrimonial home on Raksha Bandhan day, i.e. 24.08.2010. She left the three elder children with the petitioner, and took away the youngest child Liam with her. The custody petition had been preferred to seek custody of the youngest son Liam from the respondent wife. The petitioner also moved an application in those proceedings to seek interim custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
6. Accordingly, on 30.09.2010, the child Liam was produced by the petitioner before the Court. The learned Guardianship Judge saw for himself that the petitioner had the custody of the child Liam, who was produced in Court by the petitioner. Consequently, the learned Guardianship Judge, upon consideration of the matter and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the custody of the child Liam had come into the hands of the petitioner, disposed of the application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act., 1890.
33. In his rejoinder, Mr. Kaul has submitted that the entire submission of the respondent fails to take note of the manner in which "civil contempt" has been defined under the Contempt of Courts Act. Civil contempt is defined as:
He, therefore, submits that civil contempt is defined very widely to not only take within its ambit willful disobedience to decrees, directions and orders, but also other processes of a Court.
34. Mr. Kaul submits that the order dated 30.09.2010 is, even otherwise, an "order" within the definition of that expression contained in Section 2(14) of the CPC. He submits that merely because the respondents counsel chose not to appear before the learned Guardianship Judge on 30.09.2010, when the matter was taken up, would not mean that the proceedings held before the learned Guardianship Judge, and recorded by him, do not amount to an order. He submits that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act to seek interim custody of the minor child Liam. On 30.09.2010, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Guardianship Judge with the child Liam, and the Court saw for itself that the custody of the said minor child was with the petitioner. Mr. Kaul submits that the Court recorded the petitioners submissions and duly considered the same and also appreciated the factual position placed before it. Thereafter, the learned Guardianship Judge gave his decision that, keeping in view the fact that the child whose custody was sought by the petitioner has already come in his custody, the prayer made in the application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act stands satisfied. In the light of the aforesaid position, the learned Judge disposed of the petitioners application under Section 12, as aforesaid.
41. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position, a perusal of the order/proceedings dated 30.09.2010 leaves no manner of doubt that the same qualifies as an "order" within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the C.P.C. The learned Guardianship Judge gave its decision on the petitioner's application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act while passing the said order, after appreciating the factual position presented before him that the child Liam was in fact in his custody on the said date. The application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act had been preferred to seek interim custody of the said child from the respondent. As the said interim custody had, by turn of events, vested in the petitioner, the prayer made in the interim application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act stood satisfied and, consequently, that application was disposed of by the learned Guardianship Judge after considering all the aforesaid aspects. Merely because the order was passed in the absence of the respondent or her representative, the said order does not cease to be a "decision" of the Court. By this decision, the Court recognized the factual position that the interim custody of the child Liam had passed into the hands of the petitioner. The learned Guardianship Judge has recorded his reason for disposing of the application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act.