This Court also aligns itself and follows the binding decision of the Federal Court in Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah & Anor [2001] 1 CLJ 568, wherein the apex court expressly adopted and approved the approach taken by the English Court of Appeal in Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567. In Hadkinson, the mother had removed the child out of the jurisdiction and wilfully refused to comply with an order directing the return of the child. The English Court of Appeal held that a party who is in deliberate and continuing disobedience of a Court Order should not be permitted to take advantage of the Court’s process while remaining in contempt. The underlying principle established is that the authority of the Court must be upheld at all times, and a contemnor cannot be allowed to flout its orders with impunity while still seeking the Court’s indulgence. The passage referencing this point is reproduced below for ease of reference : “In that case, it was held inter alia, that where an order related to a child, the court would be adamant on its due observance, for such an order was made in the interests of the welfare of the child, and the court would not tolerate any interference with or disregard of its decisions on those matters, and least of all would permit disobedience of an order that a child should not be removed outside its jurisdiction. It was further held that the mother was not entitled to prosecute or be heard in support of her appeal until she had taken the first and essential step towards purging her contempt by returning the child to the jurisdiction. Lord Denning, in delivering judgement of the court had this to say at p. 575: ‘The present case is a good example of a case where the disobedience of the party impedes the course of justice. So long as this boy remains in Australia, it is impossible for this court to enforce its order in respect of him. No good reason is shown why he should not be returned before counsel is heard on the merits of this case, so that, whatever order is made, this court will be able to enforce it. I am prepared to accept the view that in the first instance the mother acted in ignorance of the order, but nevertheless, once she came to know of it, she ought to have put the matter right by bringing the boy back. Until the boy is returned, we must decline to hear her appeal.”