Allahabad HC Draws Line: No Appeals When Contempt Court Just Says 'No'

In a matrimonial tangle turned legal procedural showdown, the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has firmly shut down an intra-court appeal challenging a single judge's dismissal of contempt proceedings. Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary ruled on April 29, 2026, in Saurav Raj v. Sonakshi Verma (Special Appeal No. 84 of 2025) that such appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, are maintainable only if the contempt court oversteps by delving into the original dispute's merits. This reinforces earlier precedents, limiting forum-shopping in contempt matters.

Matrimonial Vows to Affidavit Wars: The Spark

Saurav Raj and Sonakshi Verma married on February 15, 2021, under Hindu rites, but disputes erupted quickly. Verma, a Bihar judicial officer (Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-I, later Registrar at Bihar Land Tribunal), filed a maintenance claim under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Case No. 3288/2022). In her June 27, 2022, Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities—mandated by the Supreme Court's Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569)—she marked income and assets as "N/A," despite her salaried judicial post and a recent car purchase.

An ex-parte order on November 2, 2023, awarded her ₹10,000 monthly maintenance, restrained Raj from the matrimonial home, and gave ₹2 lakh compensation. Raj cried foul, filing a Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS) application (Misc. No. 83439/2024) for perjury and a contempt petition (No. 3201/2024) in the High Court. The single judge, on August 13, 2024, disposed of contempt, noting the pending perjury case and advising against multiple proceedings, with liberty to seek transfer.

Appellant's Fury: 'Contempt Ignored, Justice Denied'

Raj's counsel, Priyanka Singh and Abhay Pratap Singh, argued the single judge dodged prima facie contempt under Rajnesh v. Neha 's guidelines (para h), which flag false affidavits for Section 340 and contempt action. They claimed no bar to parallel remedies, citing precedents like Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association v. State of Assam (AIR 1996 SC 1925) for simultaneity, and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana ((1995) 3 SCC 757) for false affidavits as obstructing justice.

Specific falsehoods alleged: Verma's "N/A" income despite judicial salary since 2018; hidden Hyundai Creta purchase (Reg. UP 32 NX 2057) amid proceedings; unsupported dependent claims; and state-covered medical expenses listed personally. They invoked Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank v. Chunni Lal Nanda ((2006) 5 SCC 399) and a prior Allahabad DB ruling in Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami for appeal maintainability when jurisdiction is exceeded.

Respondent's Defense: 'Error, Not Evasion—Stick to One Forum'

Pranshu Agrawal for Verma countered that "N/A" was an inadvertent slip—her affidavit and maintenance application openly stated her judicial role, noted even in the ex-parte order. No mens rea existed, and parallel proceedings on identical facts violate prudence, per proviso to Section 10, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Rajnesh 's "and" should read disjunctively as "or," per Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1968 SC 1450). Raj's litigious history (nine cases) and dismissed perjury bid underscored abuse.

Dissecting Jurisdiction: Merits Out of Bounds for Contempt

The Division Bench meticulously parsed precedents. Drawing from Midnapore (Supra), appeals under Section 19, Contempt Act, lie only post-punishment; refusals to initiate aren't appealable unless "incidental" to punishment or merit-tainted. Echoing Subhash Chandra and Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Veer Bahadur Yadav (2023(7) ADJ 107), the single judge neither probed merits nor issued substantive directions—merely curbed multiplicity amid a pending BNSS proceeding.

"The scope of jurisdiction of Contempt Court is to determine whether contempt is committed and to impose appropriate sanctions if it has been committed. The merits of the original controversy are outside the domain of the contempt court."

The Court clarified Rajnesh cautions but doesn't mandate dual actions; courts aren't bound. No overstep occurred, rendering the appeal unmaintainable.

Key Observations

  1. "A special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 is only maintainable if the learned Single Judge has overstepped its jurisdiction and jumped into deciding on merits of the earlier order."

  2. "In contempt proceedings, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties." (Quoting Midnapore )

  3. "The observation and/or direction of the learned Single Judge are not even peripheral to the merits of the contempt petition."

  4. "Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum, that is, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Final Verdict: Appeal Dismissed, Clarity Restored

"We unhesitatingly hold that the present special appeal/intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed without demur."

This ruling, aligning with a recent Allahabad HC note on barring intra-court appeals absent jurisdictional overreach, streamlines contempt dockets. For family courts, it signals caution on affidavit candor without auto-triggering High Court contempt, preserving trial-level perjury remedies. Litigants like Raj must exhaust lower forums first, curbing High Court overload in domestic battles.