Entering into a second marriage after the period of limitation for filing an appeal constitutes wilful disobedience to the process of the Court, but does not amount to criminal contempt as it does not directly interfere with the administration of justice.

M.M.KUMAR, J.

1. On account of their significance and frequent presence in a large number of cases the following two questions of law have been referred to this Bench for authoritative opinion:-

"1. Whether performance of a marriage after filing of appeal, an unlawful act in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , amounts to wilful disobedience to the "other process of the Court" disclosing a civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act?

2. Whether the act of marriage by the respondent after the filing of the appeal interferes or obstructs the administration of justice and thereby amounts to a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act?"

2. The aforementioned questions are required to be examined in the light of the facts which are evident from the reference order dated 29.8.2007. Smt. Jasbir Kaur has filed the instant petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, the Act), alleging disobedience of order dated 19.9.2003 (P-1) passed by this Court in F.A.O. No. 211-M of 2003. The pe-titioner-Smt. Jasbir Kaur has filed the appeal (FAO No. 211-M of 2003) assailing the order and decree of divorce, dated 5.8.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. On 3.4.1990, marriage between Smt. Jasbir Kaur and Shri Kuljit Singh was solemnised. On 30.9.1996, the husband-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, the 1955 Act). On 5.8.2003, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, allowed his petition by granting him a decree for dissolution of marriage. Feeling aggrieved, the wife-petitioner approached this Court by filing first appeal on 9.9.2003 (FAO No. 211-M of 2003) and this Court on 19.9.2003 passed the following order:-

"Issue notice to show cause why appeal be not admitted returnable on 9.2.2004. Respondent shall be present in Court on the next date of hearing. In the meantime, respondent is restrained from remarrying."

3. Subsequently, the appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 22.3.2005. The wife-petitioner has filed the instant petition alleging that the husband-respondent has contracted second marriage with one Baljit Kaur. Out of that wedlock a male child was also born. It has further been claimed that as per Section 15 of the 1955 Act, no person can re-marry even if a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce, till the period of filing an appeal has expired without an appeal having been presented or the appeal having been dismissed. In support of the allegation that the husband-respondent has contracted second marriage with Baljit Kaur certain photographs have also been placed on record as Annexures P-4 to P-7. The wife-petitioner has also placed on record the birth certificate of the male child born on 14.2.2004 (P-2) and another certificate dated 16.3.2005, issued by the Apollo Public School, Urban Estates, Phase-I, Near Radio Station, Patiala, certifying that Jasmeet Singh son of S. Kuljeet Singh Bhatia and Mrs. Baljeet Kaur was a bona fide student of 5th class in the said school and his date of birth is 17.2.1994 (P-3).

4. In reply, the husband-respondent took the stand that he had contracted the marriage on 15.9.2003, which was registered on 18.9.2003, whereas the restraint order was passed by this Court only on 19.9.2003. It has been asserted that the wife-petitioner obtained certified copy of the order and decree of divorce dated 5.8.2003 on 12.8.2003, however, instead of filing an appeal by attaching the said certified copy of the judgment, the petitioner applied for another copy on 26.8.2003 and on the basis of the said copy, she filed FAO No. 211-M of 2003. Moreover, the appeal, complete in all respects, was filed in this Court only on 18.9.2003 and thus, it has been claimed that the marriage performed by the husband-respondent before receipt of notice from this Court, cannot be termed as violation of the orders passed by this Court