Contempt proceedings are valid even when remedies exist under execution law, as they address wilful non-compliance with court orders, not just recovery of debts.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 5685/2022

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CONT.APP.(C) 3/2022 & CM APPL.5684/2022[Application filed on behalf of the appellant for interim relief]

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.12.2021, passed by the learned single judge in CONT.CAS(C) 861/2020. Via the impugned order, the learned single judge has held the appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, guilty of contempt.

2.1. The matter has been fixed for sentencing before the learned single judge on 02.02.2022.

3. Mr Rahul Shukla, who appears on behalf of the appellant, assails the order passed by the learned single judge on two grounds:

(i) First, since remedy by way of execution proceedings is available to the respondent, contempt proceedings are not maintainable.

(ii) Second, the appellant does not have the wherewithal to pay the money due and payable to the respondent.

4. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, we are of the view that the same is not tenable. The execution proceedings, both in scope and nature, are different from the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [in short, the "1971 Act"].

4.1. Since the proceedings initiated under the 1971 Act concern the contemnor and the court, and are premised on upholding the rule of law, the respondent cannot, possibly, obtain redressal (in this case recover monies) under the said proceedings. Execution proceedings are essentially remedial in character, whereas civil contempt proceedings are founded on wilful breach and not just non-compliance. [See Niaz Mohammed & Others vs State of Haryana & Others, (1994)6 SCC 332, ¹ ;Kapildeo Prasad Sah vs. State of Bihar, (1999)7 SCC 569, ² .] It may happen that, in a given case, an offshoot of the contempt proceedings may result in remediation. A perusal of the record of the case would show that this is a case of wilful default; an aspect which is elaborated hereafter. Therefore, this submission is rejected.

5. Inasmuch as the second ground is concerned, its tenability needs to be examined in the backdrop of the record of the case.

5.1. The record shows that the contempt proceedings were initiated pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Mahila Court, Saket, New Delhi [in short, "MM"] in CC No.6505/2017. This was an action instituted by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter referred to as "the DV Act"]

5.2. In these proceedings, two significant orders were passed by the learned MM; the first was passed on 15.02.2018 while the second was passed on 14.08.2020.

5.3. Curiously, the appellant has not placed on record the second order i.e., order dated 14.08.2020, although the same has been screen-shared by the counsel-on-record for the respondent i.e., Mr. Mohit Jolly.

5.4. A perusal of the order dated 15.02.2018 shows that the respondent had moved the learned MM for issuance of directions for securing residence for her and her son in the "shared household" and/or alternate accommodation.

5.5. The appellant, however, opposed the request, and offered instead to pay Rs.15,000/- per-month to the respondent towards rent that she may have to pay for securing an accommodation for herself and their son.

5.6. Given the stand of the appellant, a direction was issued to that effect.

5.7. Likewise, a perusal of the order dated 14.08.2020 shows that since there was a default by the appellant in remitting Rs.15,000/- p.m. as directed, an application was moved by the respondent. The appellant, to avoid a coercive order offered to pay the outstanding