Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Rashmi Sehrawat – Appellant
Versus
Praveen Sehrawat – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 481 of 2020
Decided On : 10-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey and Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Advocates with Petitioner in Person.
Mr. Bhagat Singh and Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocates with Respondent in Person.

Repeated non-compliance and disobedience of court orders and undertakings constitute contempt of court.

Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Maintenance - DV Act - 2005 - [WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE, MAINTENANCE, DV ACT 2005] - The court discussed the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the repeated undertakings given by the Respondent, and the non-compliance with the maintenance orders. The court found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to two months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition against the Respondent for non-compliance with the maintenance order dated 18.09.2019. The Respondent failed to pay the maintenance amount despite repeated orders and undertakings.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court for wilful disobedience of the maintenance orders and sentenced him to two months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000.
Issues: Non-compliance with maintenance orders, repeated undertakings by the Respondent, transfer of assets to defeat maintenance order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Respondent's repeated non-compliance and disobedience of maintenance orders, despite multiple opportunities and undertakings, constituted contempt of court.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the Respondent to two months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000 for contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. The present contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner, wife stating that the Respondent, husband is in wilful disobedience and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Mahila Court: 01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (`the Trial Court') in CC No. 10740/18, whereby the Respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.35,000, including rent, for the two minor sons and the Petitioner from the date of filing the application i.e., 18.05.2018 till the disposal of the case.

1.1. By the said order, the Trial Court directed maintenance of Rs.10,000 each for minor children, i.e. (10,000 X 2) and Rs.10,000 for the Petitioner herein, inclusive of all expenses. The Respondent was directed to additionally make a payment of Rs.5,000 towards the rent of accommodation. This made the amount of maintenance a sum total of Rs.35,000.

2. This contempt petition was filed by the Petitioner on 24.08.2020, in view of the absolute non-compliance of the said order dated 18.09.2019. It was stated in the petition that no payment was made by the Respondent since the date of the order.

3. Both the parties had assailed the said order dated 18.09.2019 and the cross appeals were disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (`the Appellate Court'). The Appellate Court returned a finding that the monthly income of the Respondent is Rs.65,000.

3.1. The Respondent was directed by the Appellate Court to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.5,000 per month for the maintenance of each child (Rs.5000 x 2 = Rs.10,000) and apart from that he was further directed to pay the school fee of the child as demanded by the school, directly to the school. After perusing the previous school receipts, the Appellate Court observed that the school fees of each child were Rs.10,000 per month and thus, the Appellate Court held that the interim compensation payable for each child is Rs.15,000 per month.

3.2. In addition, the Respondent was directed to pay Rs.10,000 per month for the Petitioner herein towards maintenance and Rs.5,000 towards the rent.

3.3. Thus, the sum total of the monthly amount of maintenance was determined by the Appellate Court as Rs.45,000, subject to variation on account school fees.

4. The judgment in this matter was reserved on 17.02.2023.

5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties are set out as herein under:

Arguments of the Petitioner

5.1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that arrears as on date, towards the maintenance of the Petitioner and her minor children is in the sum of Rs.15,45,000. He states that this is exclusive of the outstanding school fees of the minor children.

5.2. He states on instructions from the Petitioner that the Respondent herein has a substantial rental income of 10-12 lakhs per month. He states that the Respondent herein along with his family owns 32 flats in Mahipalpur.

5.3. He also refers to the averments made by the Petitioner in CM Appl. No. 36685/2022, wherein it has been stated that the Respondent has sold the villa at Greater Noida (Villa No. C-99, Paramount, Golf Forest, Greater Noida) for Rs.49,00,000 in the year 2018. He states that the Trial Court had directed the Respondent to produce the account of the said transaction and details of the expenditure of the said amount. He states that the Respondent has willfully failed to comply with the said direction and till date has not produced the same. In this regard, he specifically relies on paragraph 13 of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court. He states that no reply has been filed to the said application till date.

5.4. He also states that owing to the conduct of the Respondent in not paying the school fees of the minor children on time, they are facing harassment for demand of fee and ridicule from the respective school. Arguments of the Respondent

6. In reply,