Q: What is the penalty for contumacy ?

Ans: "Section 45(1) Penalty for contumacy.-(1) In the following cases, namely:- (a) If a person having the custody of a minor fails to produce him or cause him to be produced in compliance with a direction under section 12, sub-section (1), or to do his utmost to compel the minor to return to the custody of his guardian in obedience to an order under section 25, sub-section (1); or

(b) if a guardian appointed or declared by the Court fails to deliver to the Court, within the time allowed by or under clause (b) of section 34, a statement required under that clause, or to exhibit accounts in compliance with a requisition under clause  (d) of that section;

(c) if a person who has ceased to be a guardian, or the representative of such a person, fails to deliver any property or accounts in compliance with a requisition under section 41, sub-section (3), the person, guardian or representative, as the case may be, shall be liable, by order of the Court, to fine not exceeding one hundred rupees, and in case of recusancy to further fine not exceeding ten rupees for each day after the first during which the default continues, and not exceeding five hundred rupees in the aggregate, and to detention in the civil jail until he undertakes to produce the minor or cause him to be produced, or to compel his return, or to deliver the statement, or to exhibit the accounts  or to pay the balance, or to deliver the property or accounts,  as the case may be."

Keywords used: 
Recusancy: protest, oppose


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Delineate the citation of Mausami Moitra Ganguly v. Jayant Ganguly ?

Ans:  Case study - Petition for child-custody under the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 read with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 In Mausami Moitra Ganguly v. Jayant Ganguly, after Mausami Ganguly's petition seeking divorce was allowed ex parte in September 2002, she filed a petition under sections 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 before the Family Court, Allahabad in April 2003 seeking a direction against her husband, Jayant Ganguly, to hand over the custody of the child to her and for a declaration in her favour that she be declared as the lawful guardian of her minor son, Satyajeet. Her petition was contested by her husband (the minor's father), Jayant Ganguly. He alleged that having left the minor when he was less than three years of age, Mausami had no emotional bond with the child, and after leaving Allahabad, she had neither talked to the minor nor had enquired about his...
Read more