ORDER : In this contempt petition, due to continuous defiant attitude adopted by the two contemnors before us, we are compelled to take coercive action against them. 2. The two connected cases in SLP (C) No. 22990 of 2001 and CA No. 4797 of 1998 preferred separately by the two contemnors arise from the order of the family court at Hyderabad in proceedings for appointment of guardian and custody of the minor child Roshan S. Jude, now aged about five years. The proceedings for appointment of a guardian and custody of the above named minor child were instituted by the husband as estrangement developed in the married life of the couple, that is, the petitioner and contemnor Hannah Grace Jude (hereinafter referred to as husband and wife a respectively). Contemnor 2 is the mother of Contemnor 1 and shall be referred hereinafter as the grandmother of the minor child. 3. The factual background leading to passing of this order for taking coercive steps against the two contemnors is as under: The petitioner and Contemnor 1 were married according to Christian rites at Hyderabad on 7-2-1989 and a son was bora to them on 2-5-1997. The D married couple was living at that time in USA. Differences Arose between the husband and the wife due to the alleged involvement and behaviour of Contemnor 2 grandmother. The wife approached the Circuit Court, Maryland in USA where she had given birth to her child, to obtain a protective order with respect to the child against the petitioner. The court at USA gave protective order on condition that the child will not be taken out of the c jurisdiction of that court. The wife, however, brought the child to India on 14-4-1998 and kept him in the care and custody of Contemnor 2, the grandmother of the child. Thereafter the wife, leaving the child to the care of her mother in India, left India. The petitioner came back to India to take care of the child. On 1-5-1998, he approached the Family Court at Hyderabad with petition under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act to d seek his appointment as guardian of the minor child and for his custody. The petitioner came back to India to take care of the child. On 1-5-1998, he approached the Family Court at Hyderabad with petition under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act to d seek his appointment as guardian of the minor child and for his custody. A cross-petition was filed by the grandmother of the child in the Family Court seeking restoration of the custody of the child on the allegation that on the child's birthday he was taken into custody by the husband. The Family Court at Hyderabad on 19-8-1998 rejected the prayer of the husband for custody and directed restoration of the custody of the child to the grandmother. The e husband was only granted visiting rights. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the husband approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Civil Revision Petition No. 3229 Of 1998. The high court in civil revision granted custody of the Minor child to the husband with visiting rights to the wife on condition of the husband depositing a sum of rupees five lakhs in fixed deposit in the bank in the name of the child. 5. The wife has approached this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 15185 of 1998. Looking at the age of the child, this court, by order passed on 15-9-1998, granted interim custody of the child to the wife with permission to her to take the child to USA on the condition of furnishing a written undertaking to bring the child back to India on or before 25-9-1998. The Family Court was directed to dispose of the pending case before it for appointment of guardian and custody of the minor child within a period of 18 months. The terms of the order passed by this Court on 15-9-1998 read as under: "Special leave granted. Looking to the age of the child, the interim custody of the child is given to the 1st appellant mother. She will be at liberty to take the child to USA on the condition that both the appellants file undertakings before this Court on or before 25-9-1998 to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Family Court and the 1st appellant will also file an undertaking to the effect that the 1st appellant will appear before the Family Court as and when required by the Family Court. If during the interregnum the respondent wants to visit the child in USA, he can do so after making prior arrangement with the 1st appellant to see the child. Passport of the child should be released on the filing of the undertaking. The impugned order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Family Court should dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 18 months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." 6. Pursuant to the order of this Court mentioned above, the wife filed a written undertaking on an affidavit in this court and the relevant portion of the undertaking reads- "As directed by this Court in the order dated 15-9-1998, I hereby undertake to bring the child back to India When So Ordered By The Family Court And Further Undertake To Appear Before The Family Court, Hyderabad, as and when required by the Family Court." Similar undertaking was also given by the grandmother which reads as- "As directed by this Court, I undertake to bring the child back to India as and when ordered by The Family Court, HYDERABAD." 7. The various legal steps taken by the wife in the court in USA are not relevant except the mention of the fact that the family court at Hyderabad on 6-1-2000 directed the wife to produce the child on 7-2-2000 and the wife failed to obey the said order. Repeatedly, time granted by the Family Court for the purpose of production of the child had no effect. The wife thereafter absented from the proceedings of the Family Court at Hyderabad. The Family Court, therefore, after recording evidence of the husband, passed an order on 11-4-2000 appointing the husband as guardian of the minor child and issued direction to the wife to restore the custody of the child to the husband. The Family Court also held that the husband would be entitled to permanent custody of the child as the wife has left India and is disobeying orders of the Court. 8. Against the orders of the Family Court at Hyderabad, the wife has approached this Court in connected case in Ca No. 4797 Of 1998. The Family Court also held that the husband would be entitled to permanent custody of the child as the wife has left India and is disobeying orders of the Court. 8. Against the orders of the Family Court at Hyderabad, the wife has approached this Court in connected case in Ca No. 4797 Of 1998. Against The order of the Family Court directing Contemnor 2, The grandmother to produce the child in accordance with the undertaking given in writing to the Supreme Court, contemnor 2 approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which formed a view that the breach of undertaking amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court and it granted liberty to Contemnor 2 to approach this Court for necessary orders. Thereafter Contemnor 2 (mother of the wife) has approached this Court in connected Special Leave Petition No. 22990 of 2001. 9. In the present contempt petition notice was issued to the contemnors on 28-9-2000. On service of notice, on behalf of contemnor 2, time was taken to inform contemnor 1 and to keep her present with the child in this Court. Again request for time was made and granted for the production of the child on 12-3-2001. On 8-5-2001, this Court granted further indulgence to the contemnors to remain present with the child on 6-8-2001. 10. It appears that the wife has scant regard for the orders made and communicated to her by this Court. On 6-8-2001, therefore, this court directed that the union of India be added as a party to secure the presence of the wife who is presently in USA with the child. On 17-9-2001, taking a serious view of the defiant attitude of the wife, the Court directed the Union of India to intimate her employer in USA of her conduct of disobeying the orders of this Court. On 7-1-2002 the contemnors entered appearance not personally but through a lawyer and sought protective order against arrest of Contemnor 2. 11. This Court on 6-2-2002 passed a detailed order narrating previous orders earlier made by this Court to secure the presence of the wife and the child and then issued contempt notice to both the contemnors. On 6-3-2002, on the request made on behalf of the contemnors, the execution of warrants of their arrest was extended up to 30-7-2002. The same order was reiterated on 3-4-2002. 12. On 6-3-2002, on the request made on behalf of the contemnors, the execution of warrants of their arrest was extended up to 30-7-2002. The same order was reiterated on 3-4-2002. 12. When the matter was called on 14-11-2002 again the counsel appearing for the wife expressed her inability to appear with the child in this court. an affidavit alleged to have been sworn by the wife has been filed stating that she is unable to travel back to India. In the affidavit it has also been stated that as custody of the child has been granted to her by Maryland Circuit Court in USA, the proceedings in this case should be closed and both the contemnors should be exonerated. 13. On behalf of Contemnor 2, the grandmother of the child, who was present in court on 14-11-2002, learned counsel raised his hands in helplessness because of his client. It is stated by the counsel that as the mother and the child are in USA the grandmother of the child is unable to honour the undertaking given on behalf of her daughter to this Court. 14. The above resume of the proceedings which took place in this Court show the contumacious conduct and attitude of both the contemnors. the custody of the child having been obtained by the wife from this Court, it is not open to her not to subject herself to the jurisdiction of this Court. The breach of undertaking given by the contemnors to this Court is an act of gross contempt deserving deterrent punishment. For the present, we make the following directions: (1) The Union of India is directed to cancel the passport of Contemnor 1 Hannah Grace Jude and take necessary steps to secure the presence of the wife with the child in India, and to ensure her appearance before this Court on 23-1-2003. (2) The Union of India is also directed to communicate the order of this Court to the employer of Contemnor 1 in USA with intimation that her passport has been cancelled as a result of the breach of undertaking committed by her of this Court. (3) So far as Contemnor 2 is concerned, she cannot be exonerated in view of unconditional undertaking given by her to this court to secure the presence of her daughter with her minor child. (3) So far as Contemnor 2 is concerned, she cannot be exonerated in view of unconditional undertaking given by her to this court to secure the presence of her daughter with her minor child. She is, therefore, directed to remain personally present in this Court with the wife and child on 23-1-2003. 15. A copy of this order be forthwith sent to the Secretary, Minister of External Affairs, Government of India to take necessary appropriate action before the due date in accordance with the direction made above to secure the presence of the wife with the child in this Court. 16. Let the matter be listed for compliance of this order.