The court ruled that mere delay does not equate to willful disobedience, emphasizing the need for intentional violation to establish contempt.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

This contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Rule 4 of the Contempt of Court Rules, High Court of Madras, 1975, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 16-06-2025 in CMP.Nos.13643 & 13645 of 2025 in CRP.No.2361 of 2025.

2.I have heard Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.R.Karthik Lakshmanan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the matter arises under the proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Alandur, in D.V.C.No.2 of 2025. An order passed in Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2025 in the said DVC proceedings was challenged by the respondent herein. On 16.06.2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I had granted an ex-parte interim direction, as well as an interim stay of the order dated 17.03.2025. The complaint of the petitioners is that the respondent has deliberately violated the interim order granted by this Court on 16.06.2025 and even in the counter affidavit, no remorse has been shown by the respondent and that the respondent has chosen to comply with the orders of this Court at his convenience and not with a true intent to actually comply with the orders of this Court.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to the date on which the respondent was served with the notice of the order dated 16.06.2025 and also point out to the alleged acts of willful disobedience and contempt committed by the respondent in this regard. He would therefore pray for suitable orders being passed, holding the respondent in gross contempt of orders of this Court.

5.Per contra, Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that as on date there has been compliance of the order dated 16.06.2025 and though there has been some delay in effecting compliance, he would submit that the same is not deliberate or willful. In this regard, he would state that in the interregnum period, that is after 16.06.2025, the matter was repeatedly listed and being heard by this Court and attempts were being made by the respondent to vacate the interim order passed and in such circumstances, there cannot be any willful or deliberate motives attributed to the respondent, alleging that there has been disobedience of the order dated 16.06.2025.

6.The learned Senior Counsel would also invite my attention to the unconditional apology tendered in the counter affidavit as well as the undertaking that he will not enter the residential flat situated at Crest Apartments, till the disposal of the application for vacating the interim order dated 16-06-2025 in CRP.No.2361 of 25 or disposal of the CRP itself, as the case may be. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that the content petition may be dismissed.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 8.The contempt petition was entertained and statutory notice was issued to the respondent on 09-09-2025. In obedience to the statutory notice, the respondent appeared in person on 13-10-2025 and tendered his unconditional apology in person. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned for filing counter in the contempt petition, which also came to be filed, to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners.

9.The fact that, the respondent has violated the order dated 16-06-2025, is not even an