1987 Supreme(Bom) 327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.D. Tated, J.
Sarladevi Bharatkumar Rungta .... Petitioner.
Versus
Bharatkumar Shivprasad Rungta another.... Respondents.
Contempt Petition No. 10 of 1986, in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983, decided on 1-10-1987.
Advocates appeared :
N.D. Hombalkar, for petitioner.
K.J. Abhyankar with R.B. Raghuvanshi, for respondent No. 1.
B.G. Vaidya, A.G.P., for respondent No. 2.

Headnote:Section 2 (b)-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24-Arrears of maintenance-Husband was ordered to pay-Husband disobeyed the order -Court could proceed against him for the contempt of court under the Act, even though maintenance amount could be recovered by taking recourse to execution proceeding.

       Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to order payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. In a petition by a husband against a wife for reliefs under that Act, the Court has powers to grant interim maintenance and the expenses of proceedings and if the petitioner-husband does not pay the maintenance and the expenses of the proceedings, the wife cannot be forced to take recourse to execution proceedings. If she is asked to recover the amount by taking out execution proceedings, the recovery of the amount may take years together and by that time the marriage petition will proceed further and would be decided without the wife being able to defend it properly and it would lead to patent injustice. Therefore, in such cases, where the husband does not pay the maintenance and the expenses of the proceedings, the Court can stay the further proceedings. If the petition is by wife for the reliefs under the Act and the husband who is ordered to pay the maintenance and expenses of the proceedings under the Act wilfully disobeys the orders of the Court though he is in a position to pay, he can be proceeded against for the contempt of Court and can be punished.

       Though the maintenance amount can be recovered by taking recourse to execution proceedings, in my opinion, it will result into great hardship to the petitioner and the administration of justice would be impeded. The Courts have to see that their orders are carried out and no party should be allowed to wilfully flout the orders of the Court and impede the administration of justice. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case that this was a fit case in which this Court should exercise the powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. The object of taking action under the Contempts of Courts Act is not to punish but the object is to see that Courts orders are complied with.

       Section 2 (b)-Civil Contempt-Court ordered husband to pay maintenance arrears to wife-Sufficient means with husband to comply said order of court - But deliberately and intentionally husband not made payment as ordered by court - Held-Husband deliberately disobeyed courts order and committed civil contempt under Section 2 (h).

       Section 12-Contempt of Court-Punishment to be awarded- Counsel for Respondent No. 1 contended that sentence of fine would meet ends of justice -Obsened that Respondent No. 1 was sufficiently rich and as such any amount of fine would not have any desired effect-Fine will not meet ends of justice.

       It is a case where punishment to be awarded to Respondent No. 1 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Counsel for Respondent No. 1 contends that the sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. It is difficult to agree with him. The punishment under the Contempt of Plum Act for Civil Court contempt is awarded so as to compel the party to forcibly with the orders of the Court. As stated by me earlier, Respondent No. 1 is sufficiently rich and he can pay any amount of fine and it will not have any desired effect. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the fine will not meet the ends of justice. Held, respondent No. 1 guilty of Contempt of Court and under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.

       Section 20- Limitation-Counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that under Section 20 court should not have initiated proceedings for contempt as order in question was passed more than a year before. It was stated that arrears of maintenance should have been paid by the fixed date - He did not comply with the order-Within one year of expiry of that period proceedings for contempt of Court were commenced. Held that it could not be agreed with the counsel that proceedings for contempt were learned by limitation.

       Counsel for respondent No. 1 next contends that the alleged contempt took place long before the order dated 27th of January, 1986 was passed by this Court whereby a notice to show cause to Respondent No. 1 why no action should be taken was issued. The Counsel referred to Section 20 of the Contempt of the Courts Act and submitted that this Court should not have initiated proceedings for contempt as the order in question was passed in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 more than a year before 27th January, 1986. It is true that action for contempt of Court must be taken within one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case the order dated 20th of December 1984 directs Respondent No. 1 to clear the arrears of maintenance within four months. It means that the arrears of maintenance should have been paid by 20th of April 1985. Respondent No. 1 did not make any payment and did not comply with the said order during the aforesaid period. Within one year of the expiry of that period the proceedings for Contempt of Court were commenced by this Court by order dated 20th of July, 1985 whereby Respondent No. 1 husband was called upon to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were commenced after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt was alleged to have been committed. Apart from this the payment of maintenance during the pendency of appeal has to be made every month and non-payment thereof by respondent No. 1 is the recurring cause for contempt and the appeal is still pending and Respondent No. 1 is refusing to pay any amount towards the maintenance though specifically ordered by this Court. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the Counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the present proceedings for contempt are barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.