Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Sheetal Patil, W/o. Sandeep Patil, D/o Late Shekhar Tabane - Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Patil, S/o Chandralal Patil and Anr. - Respondents
Contempt Case (C) No.452 of 2019
Decided On : 15-06-2024
Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Constitution of India, Article 215, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 - 28-8-2018, FAM No.191/2018 - Summary: The court discussed the willful disobedience of the order passed by the court on 28-8-2018 and the requirement to establish the service of the order, the precise act of contempt, the contemnor's responsibility, and the date of the alleged contempt. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations from Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and The Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union to emphasize the necessity of proving the contemnor's knowledge of the order beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petitioner alleged willful disobedience of the court's order dated 28-8-2018 by the contemnor, who performed a second marriage. The contemnor argued that the interim order was not in existence after 25-9-2018, and thus, there was no willful disobedience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contempt petitioner failed to establish that the contemnor was personally aware of the restraint order passed by the court, and therefore, no civil contempt was constituted under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the willful disobedience of the court's order, the requirement to establish the contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the existence of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proving the contemnor's knowledge of the order beyond reasonable doubt, as established in Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and The Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union.
Final Decision: The rule issued on 29-8-2019 was discharged, and the contempt case was closed with no order to cost(s).
ORDER :
1. The contempt petitioner herein has filed this contempt case under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 28-8-2018 in FAM No.191/2018 (Sheetal Patil v. Sandeep Patil) by which the effect and operation of the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court in favour of the contemnor herein dated 16-7-2018, was stayed.
2. The case of the contempt petitioner is that the contemnor herein has willfully disobeyed the order dated 28-8-2018 passed by this Court and performed second marriage on 25-4-2019 for which he deserves to be punished under the aforesaid constructional provision read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. The contemnor has refuted the allegation of willful disobedience of the order of this Court and took a defence that though the order was passed on 28-8-2018, but it was only up-till the next date of hearing and on the next date of hearing i.e. 25-9-2018, this Court did not continue the stay order dated 28-8-2018 and in fact, the interim order was in existence from 28-8-2018 and from 25-9-2018, it is not in existence, whereas the second marriage has been performed on 25-4-2019 and therefore there is no willful disobedience of the order of the Court and the contemnor deserves to be discharged.
4. The petitioner and the respondents have lead evidence in support of their respective cases.
5. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner, would submit that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 28-8-2018 and performed second marriage on 25-4-2019, which amounts to willful disobedience and disregard of the order of this Court and which constitutes civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore he deserves to be punished.
6. Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that the interim order dated 28-8-2018 was not continued on the next of hearing and therefore there is no willful disobedience of the order of the Court and as such, the rule issued deserves to be discharged and the contempt case deserves to be closed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions cautiously and perused the records thoroughly.
8. The Court after hearing the parties framed following charge on 18-7- 2023: -
You Mr. Sandeep Patil, S/o Chandralal Patil, R/o Ramnagar, Motipur, Ward No.8, Tahsil & Dist. Rajnandgaon are charged as below: -
“This Court passed order on 28-8-2018 in FAM No.191 of 2018 staying the effect and operation of the impugned decree of divorce. Thereafter, the counsel marked appearance on your behalf on 25.09.2018 and subsequently, the interim order was continued on 22.02.2019 and it is still in operation. However, without leave of the court, you have performed second marriage on 25-4-2019, which amounts to willful disobedience and disregard of the order passed by this Court, thereby committed contempt punishable under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the Court proposes to try you for the same.”
9. It is not in dispute that the Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.71A/17 (Sandeep Patil v. Sheetal Patil) granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent herein – Sandeep Patil and against the contempt petitioner herein – Sheetal Patil dissolving the marriage by judgment and decree dated 16-7-2018 against which the contempt petitioner filed FAM No.191/2018 in which a Division Bench of this Court passed order on 28-8-2018 directing that till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree. The matter came up for hearing on 25-9-2018, but the interim order was not continued, however, thereafter, on 22-2-2019, it was directed that till final hearing, interim order passed earli
The necessity of proving the contemnor's knowledge of the court's order beyond reasonable doubt is essential to establish civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
Contempt - Appellant can be exonerated for contempt of court giving benefit of doubt as he tendered unconditional apologies sincerely for the delay in implementation of the order of the court with al....
The court emphasized that contempt proceedings should only be initiated when there is a clear case of wilful disobedience of a court's order and that the respondents followed due process to extend cr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that wilful disobedience of court orders, especially in the context of remarriage during the pendency of an appeal, requires evidence of the party'....
The judgment emphasized the importance of wilful disobedience and sincere apologies in contempt cases, highlighting the need for genuine remorse and contrition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
