The rightness or wrongness of a court order cannot be raised in contempt proceedings, and the order has to be obeyed. The existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

The present petition has been instituted in respect of alleged violations of an order dated 08.02.2019, passed by the Family Court, Dwarka in Civil Suit No. 4/2019. The suit was filed by the petitioner (wife) against the respondent (husband). By the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2019, the Family Court granted an ex-parte injunction, restraining the respondent from proceeding with Docket No. FM-11-422-19L, filed before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County. The petitioner alleges that, contrary to the injunction granted, the respondent has, in fact, proceeded with the said petition.

2. The prayers in the petition seek initiation of contempt proceedings, attachment of the respondent's property, issuance of non-bailable warrants, and revocation of his passport. On 22.04.2019, notice was issued in this petition only with respect to the first of these prayers. The respondent has filed an affidavit in reply.

3. Ms. Jyoti Taneja, learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary issue as to maintainability of this petition, in view of the fact that recourse to Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") is available to the petitioner. The submission was resisted by Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, who urged the Court to proceed in exercise of power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ("the Act") and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Extensive arguments were heard on this preliminary issue on 24.05.2019, and by this order, I propose to dispose of the objections on maintainability raised by Ms. Taneja.

4. The petitioner and the respondent are both Indian citizens, resident in the United States of America. They were married in New Delhi under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ["the HMA"] on 12.12.2014 and have a son, born on 23.12.2016. Both parties have, towards the end of 2018, filed matrimonial proceedings against each other. Although there is some controversy as to the exact chronology of events in this regard, it appears that the respondent filed divorce proceedings before the Superior Court in New Jersey on 21.11.2018, and the petitioner filed proceedings under Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA on 11.12.2018. In January, 2019, the petitioner also filed a suit in the Family Court, Dwarka, for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from proceeding with his petition in New Jersey. The order dated 08.02.2019 referred to above was passed on the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 in that suit. The respondent has since filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, before the Family Court, for vacating the ex-parte injunction. That application remains pending, and is next fixed for hearing on 17.07.2019.

5. After the said order was passed, the petitioner informed the respondent of the same by an email dated 08.02.2019, and also filed a copy of the order before the New Jersey Court on 19.02.2019. While submitting the order to the New Jersey Court, the petitioner expressly stated as follows:-

"The present letter may not tantamount to submission of jurisdiction by the defendant before this Hon’ble Court and the same is without prejudice to the rights and contention of the defendant."

On the same date, the petitioner also submitted various other documents to the New Jersey Court, including a certification regarding methods of alternate dispute resolution and certification of insurance coverage. The New Jersey Court scheduled a "Case Management Conference" on 05.04.2019. One day prior to the scheduled Case Management Conference, the petitioner reiterated that the aforesaid order estopped her from proceeding in New Jersey, and requested an adjournment of the Case Management Conference. By a response of the same date, the respondent opposed this request, contending inter alia that, the petitioner had submitted to jurisdiction in New Jersey and that the order of the Family C