Compliance with court orders regarding application processing and record updates is essential to avoid contempt.

K. NATARAJAN . J This Contempt Case is filed against the respondent for willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 8567/2025 dated 14.08.2025, wherein this Court directed the respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner within a period of 45 days. The relevant direction, as contained in paragraph 4 of the said judgment, reads as under:-

“4. We had requested the respondent to accept the request physically but the same has not been accepted. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and accept the petitioner's application physically for correction of the records so as to reflect her marital status as 'single' in place of 'divorce', as expeditiously as possible within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

2. Subsequent to the notice issued to the respondent, Adv. O.M. Shalina, learned DSGI, appeared for the respondent and produced documents. An extract of the SPARSH portal, wherein the status of the petitioner is mentioned as unmarried, was produced.

3. On the previous occasion, the learned counsel for the respondent had also produced the Pension Payment Order (hereinafter referred to as PPO), wherein the status itself had been removed as per the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. The submission on the document produced by the respondent is placed on record, wherein this Court directed the respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner within 45 days.

4. According to the respondent, the order has now been complied with by producing the document and changing the status of the petitioner to unmarried. Thereby, the respondent has complied with the direction of the Court.

5. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take further action against the respondent in the Contempt Case. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the status shown in the SPARSH portal, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate manner, if the status mentioned by the respondent in the portal is found to be incorrect, the petitioner is at liberty to revive this petition.

Accordingly, this Contempt case is closed.

Sd/-