Shambhu Kumar vs Kumari Monu

For the acts and deeds of the appellant in this case, which are prima facie indicative of his attitude of deliberate disobedience and direct defiance of the order of the Court to the extent of challenging the very authority of rule of law, we are constrained to initiate the proceedings against him for contempt. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 as passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 17/2011 whereby, the Family Court, Ajmer made the provision for maintenance of the daughter of the appellant and directed as under:-

When this appeal was taken up for consideration on 04.03.2013, a co-ordinate Bench took note of the purport of the order impugned as also the submissions in the last made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking to withdraw. The Bench, however, declined to accept the request for withdrawal and, instead, directed the appellant to make payment to his daughter in terms of the order impugned, i.e., a sum of Rs. 42,000/- (towards first instalment of the amount payable) plus another amount at Rs. 1,000/- per month within a period of 15 days. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.03.2013 is as under:-

This court is not inclined to accept the request of withdrawal made by the appellant for the reason that his daughter has to go ahead for execution of the order and that will be troublesome for her in approaching the court of law at all stages, at the same time, we direct the appellant to make payment in terms of the order i.e. Rs. 42,000/- plus Rs. 1,000/- per month, as directed by the Family Court and payable to his daughter, within a period of fifteen days from today.

The matter was, thereafter, listed before the Court on a few occasions but was adjourned and then, came up before us on 11.07.2013 when, in response to the queries, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that on 14.03.2013, a sum of Rs. 42,000/- was deposited by him in the Family Court, Ajmer by moving an application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per his instructions, the deposited amount was not being disbursed by the Family Court despite requests because of the pendency of this appeal, though no specific order in that regard by the Family Court was placed before us.

Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into any other aspect of the matter at the given stage, we considered it appropriate in the first place to issue direction to the Family Court concerned for immediate disbursement of the amount, if so deposited. Hence, in the order dated 11.07.2013, it was, inter alia, observed and directed that,-

As at present, without entering into any other aspect of the matter, we are clearly of the view that if at all the appellant has made the deposit with reference to the impugned order dated 05.09.2012 and this Court''s order dated 04.03.2013, the amount is directly the property of the respondent, who is none other but the daughter of the appellant; and we see not even a wee bit of justification that such an amount was not immediately disbursed by the Family Court to the respondent.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate and hence directed that the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall ensure communication of the order dated 04.03.2013 as also this order to the Family Court, Ajmer today itself through the available modes of communication including sending of the copy per fax to the Court concerned or to the District Judge, Ajmer for delivery to the Court concerned.

It shall be expected of the Family Court, Ajmer to immediately make disbursement of the amount deposited by the appellant to the respondent, who shall be expected to attend the Family Court immediately.

List this matter on 15.07.2013.

In response to the directions so issued, what has been pointed out by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in the communication dated 11.07.2013 is rather shocking.

It has been pointed out that a cheque bearing No. 105577 for a sum of Rs. 42,000/- was deposited by the appellant ''under protest'' and with a request that the payment be not made until further orders by the High Court and that the recovery process be recalled. It has been pointed out that the warrants were recalled; and ultimately, when the parties appeared before the Court on 31.05.2013 and the copy of the order was produced, the cheque was immediately handed over to the applicant (the respondent herein). However, according to the Judge, Family Court, the parties appeared thereafter on 10.07.2013 when the applicant-respondent submitted an application with the submissions that the cheque so given came to be dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the appellant. According to the Judge, Family Court, the appellant was, thereupon, asked to make payment which he declined and hence, specific process under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC was issued to the employer of the appellant for effecting recovery of 2/3rd from his salary and for remittance in the bank account of the applicant; and the matter is now fixed in the Family Court on 19.08.2013. The relevant contents of the communication of the Judge, Family Court are as under:-

The learned counsel for the respondent, of course, clarifies that on 11.07.2013, the facts about dishonour of the cheque could not be stated before this Court for want of specific instructions in that regard as he was instructed by the applicant-respondent only to the extent that she had not received the payment. The learned counsel submits that now, the applicant-respondent has contacted him and has specifically pointed out that the cheque in question was indeed dishonoured. The learned counsel for the respondent has today placed before us a photostat of the cheque aforesaid as also a photostat of the cheque returning memo dated 05.06.2013.

Though the respondent ought to have extended complete instructions to the counsel but such a shortcoming appears to be bonafide for want of proper/specific understanding of the process of law by her. However, so far the appellant is concerned, his acts, deeds and omissions, prima facie, lead to the inference that he has no respect for the rule of law, does not intend to honour the orders of the Court, and would dare defy the orders of the Court in an open blatant manner where:

(i) he deposited the cheque only in the sum of Rs. 42,000/- though as per the orders of the Court, the other component of monthly payment of Rs. 1,000/- ought to have been included therein;

(ii) he deposited such a cheque while conditioning it with a so-called "protest" even when there was no occasion for any such protest because the amount was to be paid in terms of the orders of the Court;

(iii) the cheque was given of such a bank account where the funds were not sufficient to honour and thereby, the applicant-respondent stood deprived of the payment and the order of this Court was directly defied;

(iv) without intending to honour the cheque and to make payment to the applicant-respondent, he made the submissions before the Family Court concerned for withdrawal of the recovery process and also for not making payment until orders of this Court;

(v) despite being made aware of the dishonour of cheque and having been called upon to make payment, the appellant declined, as pointed out by the learned Judge, Family Court; and

(vi) the payment as required by the order of this Court dated 04.03.2013 has not been made by the appellant to the respondent yet.

Leaving aside other aspects of the matter to be dealt with at the later and appropriate stage, we are, prima facie, of the view that a clear case for initiation of proceeding for contempt is made out against the appellant. We cannot remain oblivious to the facts and circumstances, which have surfaced in the present case where, prima facie, it appears that the appellant has no respect for the rule of the Court and has done everything consciously and deliberately to defy the order of this Court.

Hence, with reference to the facts and factors noticed hereinabove, cognizance is taken against the appellant for having committed contempt of the Court.

The contempt matter be separately registered with reference to this order and the other orders passed in this appeal as also the communication received from the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer and be processed in accordance with law.

Let a notice be issued to the appellant to show cause as to why he be not punished for having committed contempt. It be enjoined upon the appellant to remain personally present in the Court in the contempt proceedings on 30.07.2013.

So far the present appeal and the requirement of payment are concerned, it is considered appropriate and hence directed that a notice be also issued to the Head Master, Government Upper Primary School, Duwala, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, where the appellant is said to be working as a Teacher, to send all the accounting details of the appellant to this Court and also to ensure that the amount as required to be deducted under the process issued by the Family Court is immediately deducted and deposited in the bank account of the applicant-respondent. If there be any doubt, the Head Master concerned shall ensure remittance of the amount to the Family Court concerned for appropriate disbursement.

We have been informed during the course of submissions that the appellant is also having an immovable property, i.e., a house situated at village Sawar, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer in whose regard, a civil suit seeking perpetual injunction has been filed by the respondent so as to restrain the appellant from alienating the same in which, by an order dated 01.05.2013 in Civil Misc. Case No. 27/2012, the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kekri has restrained the appellant from alienating the property in question and has directed him to maintain status quo.

Having regard to the circumstances, it is also considered appropriate and hence directed that the respondent shall produce the copy of the said order dated 01.05.2013, as also the complete particulars of the immovable property belonging to the appellant before the Family Court, Ajmer; and it shall be permissible for the Family Court concerned to take up the proceedings for attachment of the said property for the purpose of ensuring total compliance of the orders passed in this case. List this appeal together with contempt matter on 30.07.2013.