JUDGMENT - KANTHARIA H.H., J.:—This is an application for contempt of Court by the petitioner-wife initiating contempt proceedings against her husband (hereinafter referred to as “the contemnor” for disobeying the order of maintenance made in her favour by this Court.

2. By a common order dated November 15, 1983 in Civil Application No. 2024 of 1983 and other Civil Applications, this Court (B.C. Gadgil, J.) directed the contemnor to pay interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to the petitioner from July 1982 till December 1983 and continue to do so for the subsequent months on or before the 15th day of each month. Further, by an order dated April 12, 1984 in Civil Application No. 1317 of 1984 in First Appeal No. 258 of 1983, this Court (S.K. Desai, J.) directed the contemnor to deposit Rs. 500/- in the Court on or before April 18, 1984. According to the petitioner, the contemnor has intentionally, wilfully and in calculated defiance not complied with the said orders. On the contrary, according to her, the contemnor has been openly saying that in spite of the orders of this Court, he shall not pay any alimony to her. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the contemnor is guilty of contempt of this Court under section 2(b) read with section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contempt of Courts Act') for which he should be suitably punished.

3. Admittedly, the contemnor has so far not paid any money to the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. Instead, he has filed a lengthy reply challenging the contempt proceedings saying that the orders passed against him are void ab initio and that he has not wilfully disobeyed the same further adding that he has no money to pay as maintenance to his wife.

4. On the submissions made before me, the only point that arises for my consideration is whether the contemnor is guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions passed and orders made against him to pay alimony to his wife.

5. According to Mr. Katikar, learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor, his client cannot be held guilty of contempt of Court as he has not wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the contemnor has no money to pay as maintenance to his wife in compliance of the directions passed and orders made against him by this Court and as such he is not guilty under section 2(b) read with section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. Now, as per section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience (emphasis supplied) to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The question, therefore, is whether the contemnor has wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court by not paying the maintenance allowance to his wife as directed by this Court. I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the submission of Mr. Katikar that his client cannot be held guilty of contempt of Court because he has not wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court inasmuch as he has no money to pay to his wife. The record produced before me shows that the contemnor is a practising lawyer. A copy of the letter bearing No. B.C./2306/86 dated June 12, 1986 from the Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra is a proof thereof. Mr. Pai appearing for the petitioner-wife produced in the Court a list of cases which shows that the contemnor has been appearing as an Advocate in the High Court, City Civil Court, Small Causes Court and the Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Bombay. Mr. Pai also brought to my notice two oral orders recorded by this Court on November 1, 1990, and November 5, 1990 by my learned brothers Mr. Justice S. M. Jhunjhunuwala and Mr. Justice A. A. Cazi which documents show that the contemnor has appeared in this Court as recently as in the month of November, 1990. Mr. Pai then produced for my

Click Here to Read the rest of this document