Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Vimal Kirti Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Rajan Gupta - Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 233 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Pankaj Garg, Senior Advocate with Mr. Milind Garg, Mr. Yaksh Gard and Ms. Astha Chetanf, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Anu Narula and Ms. Meena, Advocates, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the orders passed by the Courts must be fully honored and that the respect, confidence, and supremacy of judicial proceedings must be maintained at all costs to secure the rule of law and order in society.

Headnote:
Contempt - Maintenance - Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [MARRIAGE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CONTEMPT] - [Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 12] - The court found the respondent guilty of intentionally and deliberately violating the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned MM-01 (Mahila Court), NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi in the case titled as 'Vimal Kirti Gupta v. Rajan Gupta' in Ct. Cases 15327/2019. The respondent was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month and was also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The order was effective from 16.03.2024 in order to enable the respondent to purge himself of the Contempt and clear the dues before the said date. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the respondent got married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petitioner alleged physical and mental abuse, harassment on account of insufficient dowry, and neglect in maintaining her and their three children. The learned MM directed the respondent to pay a total sum of Rs 53,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner and their three children. The petitioner alleged that the respondent did not pay a single penny despite the court order and filed a contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent guilty of intentionally and deliberately violating the order dated 19.02.2021. The respondent was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month and was also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The order was effective from 16.03.2024 in order to enable the respondent to purge himself of the Contempt and clear the dues before the said date. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues: Violation of court order, non-payment of maintenance, intentional disobedience of court order, financial incapacity of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's financial incapacity was not to such an extent that he was incapable of complying with the directions contained in the order dated 19.02.2021. The respondent's inability to comply with the court's directives due to financial incapacity seemed to be a lame excuse in an attempt to evade the compliance of the order dated 19.02.2021. The court emphasized that the orders passed by the Courts must be fully honored and that the respect, confidence, and supremacy of judicial proceedings must be maintained at all costs to secure the rule of law and order in society.
Final Decision: The respondent was held guilty of intentionally and deliberately violating the order dated 19.02.2021 and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month and was also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The order was effective from 16.03.2024 in order to enable the respondent to purge himself of the Contempt and clear the dues before the said date. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.

1. This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned MM-01 (Mahila Court), NW, Rohini Courts, Delhi in case titled as "Vimal Kirti Gupta v. Rajan Gupta".

BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT PETITION

2. The petitioner and the respondent got married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 22.06.2003. Two children namely Moksha Gupta and Diksha Gupta were born out of their wedlock on 16.08.2004 and 23.07.2007 respectively. On 22.04.2011, a male child named Viraj Gupta was born out of the wedlock.

3. It is alleged that after their marriage, the respondent subjected the petitioner to physical and mental abuse by beating her, harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and also taking away her stridhan. It is further alleged that in July 2018, the respondent threw the petitioner out of the house and since then, the petitioner is living separately from the respondent along with her three children. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent is wilfully neglecting to maintain the petitioner and their three children.

4. In August 2019, the petitioner filed an application u/s 12 of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned MM (North West), Rohini, Delhi. The petitioner had claimed that the respondent is running a business under the name and style of M/s SRT Manufacturing Industries and is earing approximately Rs. 2 to 3 crores per annum therefrom.

5. The respondent filed a written statement therein denying all the allegations of cruelty and harassment raised by the petitioner against the respondent. The respondent has admitted that he is running a business in the name and style of M/s SRT Manufacturing Industries but has denied that he is earning Rs. 2 to 3 crores as claimed by the petitioner. He states that this business is running in a loss and as such, he is in no position to pay the maintenance to the petitioner.

6. The respondent has further stated that he was running a Gold Gym wherein he was the Director, however, since October 2018, the Gym was closed down due to the acts of the petitioner. He states that on the other hand, the petitioner is working in the factory of her brother-in-law and is earning sufficient income to maintain herself.

7. Vide order dated 19.02.2021, the learned MM came to a finding that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the respondent. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to pay a total sum of Rs 53,000/- per month. The breakup of the amount is:

i. Rs. 25,000/- per month to the petitioner;

ii. Rs. 18,000/- per month to the three children(Rs. 6,000/- per child) and

iii. Rs.10,000/- per month towards rental accommodation for the petitioner.

8. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.02.2021 reads as under:

"9. In view of above discussion and after perusal of the material available on record and considering the financial as well as the social status of the parties, age of the minor children and the schools where they were study, this court is of the opinion that payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner and payment of Rs. 18,000/- per month towards maintenance of the three children will meet the interest of justice. Accordingly, R-1 is directed to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of the petitioner and Rs. 18,000 per month towards interim maintenance of the three children (i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per month per child) from the date of application till they are legally entitled to be maintained by him as per law. The money, if any, received by the petitioner from R-1 towards maintenance of herself and aforesaid three children, granted by any Hon'ble Court, shall be adjusted. The maintenance amount be paid on or before the 10th of each month. Arrears shall be cleared within a time of six months from today.

10. Petitioner has prayed that respondent be dire