The court clarified that failure to fully execute previous orders does not constitute contempt, allowing for the modification of maintenance terms under appropriate provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

1. This Court is of the view that the present contempt application is not maintainable. However, after hearing, this Court is of the opinion that, apart from passing an order of dismissal, certain ancillary directions ought to be issued in this contempt application in favour of the petitioner, who has chosen to appear before this Court in person in support of his case.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present contempt application may be briefly stated in chronological order.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner married Respondent No. 2 in the year 2007. It is alleged by the petitioner that soon after the marriage, Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and subsequently contracted a second marriage with one Paritosh Paul.

4. It appears, however, that Respondent No. 2 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Barasat, which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 201 of 2008. Upon contested hearing, the learned Magistrate, by an order dated October 12, 2018, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- in favour of Respondent No. 2 from the date of passing of the order.

5. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 initiated two execution proceedings, being Misc. Execution Case No. 94 of 2022 and Misc. Execution Case No. 106 of 2022, for enforcement of the order dated October 12, 2018.

6. Challenging the said execution proceedings, the petitioner preferred CRR 2085 of 2022 before this Court. A learned Judge of this Court, by an order dated July 1, 2022, disposed of the said revisional application, directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Barasat, to take into consideration the allegation of the second marriage of Respondent No. 2 and thereafter pass appropriate orders in Misc. Execution Case No. 94 of 2022 and Misc. Execution Case No. 106 of 2022.

7. Pursuant to the order dated July 1, 2022, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Barasat, seeking consideration of the said order of this Court. The learned Magistrate, however, by two identical orders dated January 20, 2023, passed in Misc. Execution Case No. 94 of 2022 and Misc. Execution Case No. 106 of 2022, rejected the said application, observing inter alia as follows:

“Having considered the submissions of both the Ld. Advocates, this Court is of the view that the second marriage of the petitioner of this case will surely be taken into consideration if the Opposite Party comes before the appropriate forum under appropriate provisions of law and there is no scope to recall the warrant of arrest issued against the Opposite Party for non payment of maintenance, as prayed for in the instant executing proceeding as this Court being executing Court cannot go beyond the order in execution.”

8. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, steps were taken for execution of the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail being CRM(A) 490 of 2023.

9. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said application on March 1, 2023, by directing the Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railways, Kanchrapara Workshop, to disburse a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.9,000/- respectively to the bank account of Respondent No. 2, towards arrear maintenance and current maintenance, commencing from the month of March 2023, and to continue such disbursement until further orders of a competent court.

10. The petitioner submits that, in compliance with the order dated March 1, 2023, amounts of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.9,000/- are being regularly deducted from his monthly sala