Point of Law: Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging contempt of order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Family Court in HMA No. 638/2018 and order dated 11.02.2021 passed in MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 20/2021 by this Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present contempt petition are as under.

3. The marriage between the Petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 18.11.2013 following Hindu rituals and customs.

4. The Respondent filed a Divorce Petition bearing no. 638/2018 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 03.04.2018. The said petition is still pending adjudication.

5. On 07.08.2018, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alongwith her Financial Affidavit, seeking interim maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs. 1,02,000/- per month and sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. In addition, the Petitioner also claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards furnishing the individual household and an independent car.

6. The Family Court vide the order dated 22.12.2020 partially allowed the said Application of the Petitioner. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“14. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, social and financial position and status of the parties, in my view it is appropriate, if the respondent/wife is granted a monthly maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner/husband is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance from the date of filing of the application. The amount of maintenance received by the respondent/wife in this case or under any proceedings is liable to be adjusted. The petitioner/husband may clear arrears of maintenance by way of installments within six months. The petitioner/husband is further ordered to pay Rs. 75,000/- (lump sum) to the respondent/wife towards litigation expenses.”

7. The Respondent being aggrieved by the said interim maintenance order filed an appeal bearing no. MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 20/2021 along with an application to seek stay of the operation of the said order.

8. This Court, vide order dated 11.02.2021 passed in MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 20/2021 issued notice and directed the respondent to comply with the interim maintenance order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Family Court. The operative portion of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by this Court reads as under:

“.......List on 14.07.2021. On the next date, the parties should remain personally present in Court.

The appellant shall, in the meantime, comply with the order passed by the Family Court without prejudice to his rights and contentions.”

9. The Respondent has, however, failed to comply with the directions passed by this court and the family court. Consequently, the Petitioner has preferred the present Contempt Case. Notice was issued to the respondent on 14.07.2021, which was accepted by the Respondent's counsel on his behalf. Two weeks time was granted to file a reply, requiring him to make a full and complete disclosure of his income and expenditure in the last 12 months from all sources. The Respondent filed his reply dated 10.08.2021.

10. Vide orders dated 12.08.2021 and 08.09.2021, we directed the respondent to remain personally present in the court. However, the Respondent did not appear before this Court on 09.09.2021 the date fixed. Different excuses were furnished by the Respondent and his counsel for his absence. Whereas his counsel stated that the Respondent had undergone an eye surgery, the Respondent himself stated - while appearing virtually, that he had not undergone any eye surgery. In view of the same, on 09.09.201, we were constrained to issue bailable warrants for his p