AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.(ORAL)
CM APPL. 47754/2024 (Ex.)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 1305/2024
The petitioner-wife is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent-husband for the latter being in wilful disobedience of the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-02, South East, Saket, New Delhi, whereby the respondent-husband had been directed to make the payment of maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife in terms of Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
It has further been provided that there shall be an increase of 10% per annum in the said allowance w.e.f. January, 2025 besides directing payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner towards costs/expenses for pursuing the proceedings.
None appeared for the respondent-husband despite sending advance notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-husband has not been complying with the aforesaid order and it is also pointed out that the order dated 01.06.2024 was assailed by the respondent-husband in MAT. APP (F.C.) 178/2024 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2024 had dismissed the appeal imposing costs of Rs. 20,000/- upon the respondent, which has also not been paid/deposited either.
During the course of arguments, it was acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is coming up for hearing before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on 03.09.2024.
Since the petitioner-wife has already approached the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for execution of such orders, this Court, as of now, refrains from passing any directions on the contempt petition. It has been a consistent opinion of this Court that every breach of judicial orders/directions passed by the Court cannot give rise to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 since contempt powers have to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases where the respondent/contemnor is guilty of some act or misconduct which is gross, unconscionable and/or exhibiting grave misconduct. Reference was also invited to a decision in the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang1, wherein it was held that merely because an order or decree of the Court is executable, the same would not take away the Court’s jurisdiction in contempt proceedings. However, in the same case, it was also held that much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case or the contextual background in which the Court may or may not decide to exercise its contempt jurisdiction. It was reiterated that normally, the parties should resort for execution of the decree or implementation of an order, which is the effective alternate remedy available in law.
This Court may also invite reference to a decision in the case of R.N.Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors.2, wherein a petition was filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-payment of the amount awarded consequent to acquisition of land and it was held as under :
“7......the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of Courts dignity and majesty of law. ...”
It was further held that:
“8....the decree-holder, who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the court for non-satisfaction of the money decree.”
Avoiding a long academic discussion, we may refer to the decision in Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Brijesh Mehrotra & Ors.3, where the proceedings arose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court observed that since the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a comprehensive code in itself and provides for a detailed procedure for acquisition of land and payment of compensation based on common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the parties should seek remedies under the same Act rather than expanding the scope of the directions by filing contempt petitions.
In view of the above, the present contempt petition is dismissed without prejudice. The petitioner-wife shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for effective and complete enforcement of the order dated 01.06.2024.
Insofar as the payment of costs is concerned, let the matter be placed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 09.09.2024 and notice be issued to the respondent-husband through the SHO concerned for payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- and in case the costs are not paid, the matter be placed before this Court for further directions on 09.12.2024.