The performance of a second marriage during the pendency of appeal, while in contravention of the Act, 1955, does not necessarily amount to willful disobedience of 'other process of a Court' under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT

A. S. Kilor, J. - By way of the present contempt petition, the petitioner is seeking action under Section 12(3) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter in short "the Act, 1971") against the respondent for alleged willful disobedience of 'other process of a Court' by performing marriage in contravention of the provision of Section 15 of the Hindi Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter in short "the Act, 1955).

2. The brief facts which are relevant for the present contempt petition are as follows:

The respondent herein had preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 against the petitioner herein for dissolution of marriage solemnized on 28.12.2003, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which was opposed by the petitioner by filling written statement.

3. The learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola vide its judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009, dismissed the petition, by holding that the respondent herein failed to prove cruelty and desertion.

4. This judgment and decree was questioned in Regular Civil Appeal No.167 of 2009, by the respondent, which was allowed and thereby declared that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent stands dissolved by decree of divorce.

5. The petitioner filed Second Appeal which is pending before this Court.

6. During the pendency of appeal the present contempt petition has been filed, alleging that the respondent had performed second marriage, in contravention of the mandate of the provision of Section 15 of the Act, 1955, which is a willful disobedience of 'other process of a Court' as provided by Section 2 (b) of the Act, 1971.

7. Heard Shri T. G. Bansod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. S. Jagtap, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Shri Bansod learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 15 of the Act, 1955 creates incapacity to marry during the pendency of appeal. It is submitted that Sub-Section (b) and (c) of Section 2 of the Act, 1971 make it evident that in order to constitute civil contempt there has to be a willful disobedience to any judgment or 'other process of a Court'. The expression 'process of a Court' would necessarily include a right to file an appeal within the period of limitation and if any, element of that right is defeated by the conduct of holder of a decree of divorce then it would constitute willful disobedience of 'other process of the Court' under section 2(b) the Act, 1971.

9. He further submits that the act of the respondent entering into second marriage during the pendency of appeal amounts to willful disobedience of 'other process of the Court' and as such action against the respondent under the provisions of the Act, 1971, needs to be taken.

10. Shri Bansod, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Jasbir Kaur Vs. Kuljit Singh, (2008) AIR(P&H) 168 .

11. He also submits that whenever adjournment was sought by the respondent in the said appeal, he had given undertaking to this Court, that he would not perform marriage during the pendency of the appeal. It is submitted that there is a wilful breach of an undertaking given to this Court.

12. Shri Sayajee Jagtap, learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, draws attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the respondent, wherein he has tendered his sincere and unconditional apology for the disobedience/non-compliance, if any, on the part of the respondent.

13. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel for the respondent submits that any marriage in contravention of Section 15 of the Act, 1955, is not void. He in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Lila Gupta Vs. Laxmi Narain and others, (1978) 3 SCC 258 and the judgment in the case of Anurag Mittal Vs. Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691 .

14. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel for respondent denied that the respondent ha