Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court

“I Plead Guilty… My Apology is Genuine and Bonafide” –  On 23 February 2026, the Kerala High Court in Cont. Cas. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2026 discharged a contemnor in suo motu criminal contempt proceedings after accepting his unconditional apology, while making it clear that closure of contempt would not affect pending or future civil or criminal proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was dealing with contempt proceedings initiated pursuant to its earlier judgment dated 30.10.2025 in W.A. No. 942 of 2024. The respondent, Shibu Mohan, had filed a writ petition and writ appeal in the name of his wife without her knowledge, forging her signatures, and had also attempted to leave the country in violation of a subsisting interim order.

The Court ultimately accepted the apology tendered under Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, noting that it was “genuine, unequivocal, and in strict compliance” with the Rules.

Writ Proceedings Filed in Wife’s Name Without Her Knowledge

The controversy began with WP(C) No. 18665 of 2024 filed before the Kerala High Court in the name of Smt. Abhila Madhavan Nair, wife of the respondent. The writ petition challenged proceedings initiated by passport authorities after the respondent’s passport was impounded for allegedly suppressing pendency of a criminal case under Section 420 IPC.

However, it later emerged that the writ petition had been filed without the knowledge or consent of Smt. Abhila Madhavan Nair. The writ appeal, W.A. No. 942 of 2024, was also filed in her name.

Upon receiving a complaint from the wife, the Division Bench directed the Registry to submit a report and sought explanation from the advocate concerned. The Registrar (Judicial), after formal enquiry, reported that:

“The writ petition as well as the writ appeal were filed without the knowledge or consent of Smt. Abhila Madhavan Nair… the Vakalat, affidavit, and connected papers were not signed by her; instead, the respondent had forged the signatures of his wife.”

The conduct was found to involve impersonation and forgery in judicial proceedings.

Attempt to Leave India in Violation of Interim Order

The matter was aggravated by the respondent’s conduct during pendency of proceedings. Though the Division Bench had granted limited relief permitting him to approach the Magistrate for permission to travel, and had passed interim orders on 09.12.2024, he attempted to leave India during pendency of an interlocutory application.

On 22.08.2025, he was deboarded from a flight to Abu Dhabi, and the incident was reported by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer to the Court.

In its earlier judgment dated 30.10.2025 dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench held that filing proceedings in his wife’s name without consent and attempting to leave the country in violation of court orders constituted contemptuous acts, and directed initiation of suo motu criminal contempt.

Contempt Proceedings: Plea of Guilt and Apology

In the present proceedings under Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the respondent appeared in person and through Senior Counsel.

An affidavit tendering unconditional apology was filed. However, the Court found the affidavit not in conformity with Rule 14(a) of the 1988 Rules and directed filing of an additional affidavit.

In the additional affidavit, the respondent categorically stated:

“I plead guilty to the charges levelled against me in this Contempt of Court Application.”

“I reiterate that I sincerely apologize… my apology is genuine and bonafide and I never had any intention to interfere with the administration of justice.”

He further stated that in deference to the Division Bench judgment, he had paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Kerala Legal Services Authority and another Rs. 1,50,000/- to his wife, producing receipts and a demand draft evidencing compliance.

“Apology Not a Mere Formality but Clear Acknowledgment of Lapse”

After hearing the respondent and perusing the affidavits, the Division Bench recorded its satisfaction:

“We are satisfied that the apology tendered by the respondent is genuine, unequivocal, and in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 14(a)… The apology does not appear to be a mere formality or an attempt to evade consequences; rather, it reflects a clear acknowledgment of the lapse.”

The Court therefore exercised its discretion to accept the unconditional apology and discharged the contemnor from the contempt proceedings.

Closure Not to Affect Civil or Criminal Liability

Importantly, the Bench added a significant caveat:

“The closure of this contempt petition shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of any other matter, nor shall it affect or impede any pending or future civil or criminal proceedings initiated against the contemnor.”

Thus, while the contempt proceedings were closed, any prosecution or proceedings arising from allegations of forgery, impersonation, or violation of passport laws would proceed independently in accordance with law.

Judicial Discipline and Sanctity of Proceedings

Though the Court accepted the apology, the case underscores the seriousness with which courts view forgery in judicial records and violation of interim orders. Filing proceedings in another person’s name without consent strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice and squarely falls within “criminal contempt” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.

At the same time, the judgment reiterates that where a contemnor pleads guilty, expresses genuine remorse, and complies with judicial directions, courts retain discretion to accept apology under Section 12 of the Act read with applicable High Court Rules.

The Kerala High Court’s decision balances stern judicial discipline with judicial magnanimity. While recognizing the gravity of impersonation and disobedience of court orders, the Court accepted the unconditional apology after ensuring strict compliance with Rule 14(a) and satisfaction of compensatory directions.

The message is clear: the dignity of the Court cannot be trifled with, but genuine repentance and compliance can persuade the Court to temper justice with mercy—without shielding the contemnor from other legal consequences.

Date of Decision: 23 February 2026