Bombay High Court
Sarladevi Bharatkumar Rungta
Versus
Bharatkumar Shivprasad Rungta and another
Decided On:

Headnote:Sections 24 and 28-A-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 2 (b), 12 and 22-Civil Procedure Code-Order XXI, Rule 37-Marriage petition allowed and a decree for divorce passed-Husband was ordered to pay wife permanent alimony @ of Rs. 750 p. m.-Husband failed. In payment of the same and did not comply with order of High Court-Contempt proceedings-Not barred on ground that amount could be recovered by wife by taking recourse to the execution proceedings or the fact that wife bad taken action under Order 21, Rule 37 Civil Procedure Code for execution by arrest or detention of husband.

       Respondent No. 1 Bharatkumar Shivprashad Rungta was married to the petitioner Saeladavi 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 ground. 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 at the rate of Rs. 750/-per month. Feeling aggrieved by the decree of divorce the wife prefered First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal Masodkar, J. passed on order dated 20th of December, 1984 whereby Respondent No.1 husband was directed to pay alimony at the rate of Rs. 750/-per month during the pendency of the appeal. He was also directed to clear the arrears within 4 months. It. was further directed that with regard to the financial position of Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1, should file a specific affidavit which would be considered for the purpose of considering the quantum of maintenance. The petitioner-wife was also given opportunity to file similar affidavit. As respondent No. 1 husband did not pay the maintenance amount in spite of the decree in the earlier orders to pay the amount, the decree in the divorce under appeal was directed to be suspended. It was made clear that the quantum of maintenance fixed under the decree was kept operative. The appeal was directed to come up for hearing after the maintenance was so paid. Respondent No. 1 husband did not pay any amount towards the maintenance and did not comply with the order of this Court dated 20th of December, 1984. Therefore, the wife filed contempt petition.

       Held, that in the present case Respondent No.1 who is very will in a position to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner, is willfully flouting the orders of this Court and contumaciously refusing to obey it. He is aware that his wife has preferred an appeal against the decision granting him relief for dissolution of marriage by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay and that appeal, being First Appeal No. 479 of 1983, has been admitted by this Court and this Court by order dated 20th December, 1984 ordered Respondent No.1 to pay the arrears of alimony within 4 months and go on paying alimony at the rate of Rest. 750/ - per month during the pendency of the appeal and further directed the appeal to come up for hearing after maintenance was so paid. He knows that the appeal of his wife is to come up for hearing after he makes payment of the maintenance ordered by the Court. He does not want that the appeal should come up for hearing and wants to protract the litigation so that he can keep his unwanted wife in misery for - ever. I am told by the learned Counsel of the petitioner that Respondent No.1 has taken a mistress named Radhadevi and they are living together as husband and wife and Radhadevi also gave birth to a male child from him in March, 1979. The learned Counsel for the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose referred to para 60 of Respondent No. 1s deposition in the trial Court wherein he has clearly admitted that after filing the marriage petition he had taken Radhadevi as his mistress and one male child was born to her from him. Taking into consideration all those facts I am fully satisfied that Respondent No. 1 is wilfully disobeying the orders of the Court for payment of maintenance to the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal and thereby he has committed civil contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 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 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 I think that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise the powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. The object of taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act is not to punish Respondent No.1 but the object is to see that the Courts orders are complied with.

       It is true that the petitioner in her petition referred to the action to be taken under Order XXI, Rule 37 Civil Procedure Code which provides for the execution of the decree or order of the Court by arrest and detention of the judgment - debtor. Taking into consideration all the averments in the petition, Masodkar, J. passed the order dated 27th January, 1986 for issuing notice to Respondent No. 1 to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against him and the said order was passed he was prima facie satisfied that the case existed for taking action under the contempt of Courts Act Respondent No. 1 has been give full opportunity to why cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of Court reference to the provision of Order XXI. Rule 37 Civil Procedure Code in the petition does not in any way vitiate the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act commenced by this Court by order dated 27th January, 1986 .

       For Citation : 1988 Mah LJ 9 at pp. 10, 14, 15, 16 : 1988 CR LJ 558 : (1988) 3 Bom CR 642