ORDER : Contempt Petition (C) No. 261 of 2000 in CA No. 4797 of 1998 1. Heard the learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 states that she has no further instructions. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 15-9-1998 passed by this Court, Respondent 1 was permitted to take the minor child to USA on condition that respondent 1 (who is the mother of the child) and respondent 2 (who is the grandmother of the child) would file undertakings before this Court to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Family Court and that Respondent 1 also filed the undertaking that she will appear before the Family Court as and when required by the Family Court. In pursuance of that order Respondent 1 has filed her undertaking which reads as under: "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 hon'ble family court and further undertake to appear before the Hon'ble Family Court, Hyderabad, as and when required by the Hon'ble Family Court." 3. Similarly, Respondent 2 has also filed an undertaking which reads as under: "As directed by this Hon'ble Court, I undertake to bring the child back to India as and when ordered by the Hon'ble family court, Hyderabad." 4. As there is a breach of the aforesaid undertakings, we had issued a show-cause notice to Respondents 1 and 2 as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. 5. On behalf of Respondent 1 the learned counsel stated that at present she is not having further instructions. The learned counsel appearing for a respondent 2, however, vehemently submitted that respondent 2 has taken all necessary steps to bring the child back to India but as the child is not in her custody and is in the custody of Respondent 1, it is not possible for her to bring the child back. She has stated that she had filed the undertaking in good faith that she would be required to do all the things reasonably to bring the child back to India when so required. She has also stated that she has informed her daughter from time to time about all court orders passed and, in particular, the orders asking her to be present with the minor child. She has also stated that she has informed her daughter from time to time about all court orders passed and, in particular, the orders asking her to be present with the minor child. Therefore, she has taken all possible means to bring the child back to India and may be discharged from the obligation of the undertaking to this Court. 6. In our view, considering the unconditional undertakings given by the respondents to this Court there is no question of not taking further action against them for not bringing the child back to India as directed by the Family Court. In this view of the matter, prima facie we are of the view that the respondents have committed the contempt of this Court and appropriate action is required to be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act for committing breach of unconditional undertaking. Therefore, we direct that notice be issued as to why they should not be punished for contempt of this Court. SLP (C) No. 22990 of 2001 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 26-12-2001 is extended up to 30-3-2002. 8. Adjourned for four weeks.