Contempt jurisdiction should not be invoked when effective alternative remedies exist for enforcing court decrees.

JUDGMENT

The above contempt of court case is filed alleging non-

compliance and wilful breach of an undertaking given by the respondent in the judgment dated 13.03.2024 of the Family Court, Ernakulam, in O.P.No.230/2024.

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that in O.P.No.230/2024, a settlement was arrived at, including maintenance and rights over the property as follows:

“i. The first petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000,00/- (rupees one crore) to the 2^nd petitioner towards full and final settlement of all her claims including maintenance and compensation.

ii. The 2^nd petitioner has got the attachment as per order in IA No. 3548/2013 in O.P No. 1857/2013 prevailing over the properties of the first petitioner in Sy. No. 674/1, lifted for enabling its sale. Immediately after the initial sale of the 14 cents of property, the first and the 2^nd respondent shall open a joint account and the amount of Rs. 1,00,000,00/- (One crore rupees) as provided in clause i above will be deposited in the joint account in such a manner that only the 2^nd petitioner Rosie Sam can only operate the account by signing cheque and using ATM card. Once this petitioner for divorce on mutual consent is allowed, the 2^nd petitioner Rosie Sam can withdraw the entire amount from the joint account and the petitioners together will close the above account.

iii. The first petitioner shall take title of the property having an extent of 3.08 cents of property which is the subject matter in the decree in OP No. 1857/2013 and will handover the title to the 2^nd petitioner or transfer the above property to third party as directed/agreed to by the 2^nd petitioner and the entire sale value for the aforesaid 3.08 cents shall be given to the 2^nd party and her son.

iv. The first petitioner shall remit all the pending due to the petitioners towards St. Mary‟s Orthodox Church till this date and give the receipt of the same to the 2^nd petitioner.

v. The aforesaid terms and conditions may be part of the decree.”

In view of the above said terms and conditions as undertaken before the Family Court, Ernakulam, O.P.No.230/2024 was allowed granting a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent has willfully breached the terms and conditions as set out in Annexure I judgment. The petitioner would submit that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore to the petitioner as agreed, but, the title of the property to the extent of 3.08 cents has not been transferred to the petitioner, which also forms part of the judgment and the undertaking. The terms of the agreement was to the effect that the respondent will transfer 3.08 cents of property to the petitioner or transfer the above said property to a third party and the entire sale value of the aforesaid 3.08 cents of the property shall be given to the petitioner herein and her son. Based on the same, Annexure II agreement for sale was executed with one Mr. Sharon Cherian Thomas for sale of the property in which the petitioner is also a party. Later, Annexure III supplementary agreement was also executed. Alleging non-compliance of the agreement, Mr. Sharon Cherian Thomas has filed a suit as O.S.No.156 of 2024 before the Sub Court Ernakulam, in which the petitioner is arrayed as a respondent and that Mr.Sharon Cherian Thomas has obtained an order of attachment for not executing the document. The petitioner relying on Section 2 (b)of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 submits that 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ