IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – With admonishment and costs, contempt notice can be discharged after accepting apology.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M Singh, J.—This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. A matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner- wife and the Respondent- husband has turned into an ugly spat between the counsel for the wife and the husband. This case demonstrates the same.

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-wife under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the Respondent and awarding him a punishment of six months of imprisonment.

4. Vide judgment dated 29th July, 2024, this Court has already held that the Respondent is guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Some relevant extracts of the judgment are set out below:-

“14. The Court has perused all the three affidavits. It is clear from a reading of the said three affidavits that the allegation of the Contemnor/Respondent is that the Counsel for the Petitioner had demanded money from him to settle the dispute. If that was the position, the proper course of action for the Respondent/Contemnor was to approach the concerned Court or the concerned regulatory body such as the Bar Council for appropriate action. If the Respondent had any grievance against the Counsel, the proper course of action of filing a complaint ought to have been adopted. It is completely impermissible for the Respondent to hurl abuses in Court during proceedings. There was no occasion for the Respondent to cause a commotion in the Court and demean the proceedings before the Court by using abusive language in the Court, not just against the Counsel for the Petitioner but making aspersions even against the Court.

15. The exasperation of the ld. Judge in the Family Court is quite clear from the fact that the ld. Judge had to even transfer the matter from her Court to a different Court. As has been recorded in the order dated 15th September, 2023, the language which has been used by the Respondent in the Court is completely uncalled for and impermissible.

16. Despite previous incidents and a police complaint, the Respondent’s conduct has continued unabated. The petition, submissions and the Respondent’s behaviour in this Court have highlighted the Respondent’s contemptuous behaviour, which interferes with the administration of justice. It is incumbent upon the Courts to check such actions and behaviour of the parties with a firm hand which otherwise it will have pernicious consequences.

17. Moreover, the Respondent in his conduct even before us shows that he does not abide by or pay any heed to the orders passed by this Court. Even after having agreed to pay the sum of Rs.15 lakhs, today, on the face of the Court, the Respondent has stated that even if he gives the cheque, the same would not be encashed and the cheque would bounce back.

18. This conduct of the Respondent is completely reprehensible and cannot be tolerated by any Court, let alone the Family Court or the Division Bench of the High Court.

xxx

20. In view of the above decision of Supreme Court, it is clearly laid down that the, that immediate action is warranted for contempt committed in the face of the Court to maintain its dignity, noting that failure to do so would lower the Court’s dignity in public eyes. Additionally, any altercation of the Court records, as in the Appellant’s case therein, constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, warranting strict judicial response.

21. In view of the circumstances of the case as also the judicial precedents, the Respondent is clearly guilty of criminal contempt as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and it is ordered accordingly.”

5. On the aspect of sentencing, the Court has heard Ms. Pinky Anand, ld. Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as also Mr. Dewan, ld. Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

6. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner wife is that th