Contempt proceedings cannot be a substitute for enforcement of maintenance orders; aggrieved parties must seek remedies through execution processes.

JUDGMENT :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. 

1. The 1^st respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No.319/2023 filed this Contempt Petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the original petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition on the ground that he willfully disobeyed the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 30.7.2024.

2. The petitioner herein filed M.C. No.2/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery under Sections 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate directed the respondent in the M.C. to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs.7,500/- In addition to the same, residence order was also granted by the Sessions Court. In Revision, this Court passed the following order:

“Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- to the 1^st respondent as monthly rent for the alternative accommodation from the date of her vacating the shared household. The 1^st respondent shall vacate the shared household within two months from today. The 1^st respondent is entitled to get monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- from the petitioner from the date of filing of M.C.No.2/2018.”

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent failed to comply the above order passed by this Court for the past four months.

4. Now the point that arise for consideration is the following:

Whether for the non-payment of the amount ordered in the Criminal Revision Petition No.319/2023, the respondent can be booked for contempt?

5. Heard Sri.Luke J. Chirayil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.T. Dinesh, the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the remedy of the petitioner is to execute the order before the learned Magistrate and not to approach this Court by filing a contempt petition of the present nature. He has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.N. Dey and Others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others, 2000 KHC 1145, Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others v. State of Bihar and Others,  1999 KHC 1350 and a decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in Itwar Singh v. Ganeshram and Another, 2015 KHC 2078.

7. In the decision in R.N. Dey (supra), in paragraph 7, the Apex Court held that:

“We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the court.”

8. In the decision in Kapildeo Prasad Sah (supra) in paragraph 9, the Apex Court held that:

“For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the co