JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---Masodkar, J. by his order dated 27th of January, 1986 in this contempt petition order issuance of notice to respondent No. 1 as to why he should not be proceeded with for contempt of Court and be not dealt with as such for not obeying the directions of the Court in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 by order dated 20th of December, 1984.

2. The brief facts giving rise to those proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act are that respondent No. 1 Bharatkumar Shivprasad Rungta was married to the petitioner Sarladevi Rungta according to Hindu rites. Respondent No. 1 filed Marriage Petition No. 10 of 1977 in the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay against the petitioner wife for a decree of nullity of marriage and in the alternative prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on various grounds. The petition was resisted by the wife. During the pendency of the proceedings on the application of the wife interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month was fixed. As per the order dated 19th of July, 1982 the marriage petition was allowed and a decree for divorce was passed. By the same decree the husband was ordered to pay to the wife permanent alimony

Click Here to Read the rest of this document