COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Three contempt petitions have been instituted to punish the respondents for wilfull disobedience of the interim orders passed by the Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.2283/2017 in OP 93/2017, I.A.No.03/2019 in OP No.3344/2019 and I.A.No.07/2021 in OP.No.3344/2019.

2. Admittedly, the matrimonial dispute exist between the contempt petitioner and the respondent. Since we are dealing with the contempt petition, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the matrimonial dispute, which all are expected to be adjudicated before the Court concerned.

3. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present contempt petitions are filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contemplates power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts. Therefore, High Court is empowered to deal with the contempt petition in respect of interim orders passed by the Family Courts or any other courts subordinate to the High Court concerned.

5. In respect of delay in filing the contempt petition against the interim order passed in the years 2017 and 2021, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is continuing cause of action since interim orders are relating to visitation rights preventing the child from taking out of Chennai City and another order is also relating to visitation. The relieves granted by the family courts are continuous. Therefore, each and every violation are periodically is to be taken into consideration, while reckoning the period of limitation for institution of contempt petition.

6. The learned Senior Counsel reiterated that the petitioner, father of the minor boy aged about 9 years is prevented from exercising his visitation right as ordered by the Family Court and such right is to be protected and the respondent having violated the orders is liable to be punished under the contempt of Courts Act. The other grounds raised in the contempt petition relating to the matrimonial disputes deserve no merit adjudication from the hands of this Court.

7. Mr.Mr.N.L.Rajah, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the contempt petitions are not entertainable. It is a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and such disputes would be insufficient for invoking the powers conferred on the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

8. For each and every violation, Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked, when an alternate remedy as contemplated both under the Special enactment and under the Code of Civil Procedure. Regarding the visitation right and other disputes, it is for the petitioner to adjudicate the same before the Court concerned. Thus, the present contempt is unnecessary and liable to be rejected.

9. In support of the contention, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.L.Rajah would rely on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayaprakash vs. Most Rev.Dr.B.P.Sugandher reported in 2006 (2) CTC 729 and in the case of A.Ramakrishnan vs. Vijayalakshmi & Ors., reported in 2016 (2) L.W. 781.

10. Considering the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand, preliminarily the scope of Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act is to be exercised on certain exceptional circumstances, whether the High Court formed an opinion that an alternate remedy contemplated under the Special Act is ineffective or would not provide any adequate remedy to the parties.

11. Exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act need not be exercised in a routine manner, so as to make an alternate remedy contemplated under the Special enactments ineffective. The Rule is to exhaust the remedies contemplated under the Special enactments and general law can be invoked such enactments are inadequate for the purpose of redressal of the grievances of the parties.

12.