Home > Judgement > Gujrat HC: Just admission of dues of maintenance cannot be said to have committed the contempt and willful disobedience of the order of Court: Contempt dismissed

Gujrat HC: Just admission of dues of maintenance cannot be said to have committed the contempt and willful disobedience of the order of Court: Contempt dismissed

Gujarat High Court
Ushaben vs Unknown on 21 December, 2010
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;

Gujarat High Court Case Information System function loadSearchHighlight() {

var chkParamC = “txtSearch” if (chkParamC == “txtSearch”) {

SearchHighlight(); document.searchhi.h.value = searchhi_string; if( location.hash.length > 1 ) location.hash = location.hash; }

}

 

Print

 

 

 

 

MCA/1308/2006 5/ 5 ORDER

 

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 

 

MISC.CIVIL

APPLICATION – FOR CONTEMPT No. 1308 of 2006

In

 

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8143 of 2005

=====================================================

USHABEN

CHANDUBHAI RAVAT & 1 – Applicant(s)

Versus

 

CHANDUBHAI

BHIKHUBHAI RAVAT – Opponent(s)

===================================================== Appearance

:

MR MR PRAJAPATI for Applicant(s) : 1 – 2. MR

HARSHADRAY A DAVE for Opponent(s) : 1,

=====================================================

CORAM

:

 

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

 

 

 

Date

: 27/03/2008

 

ORAL

ORDER

 

(Per

: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED)

 

 

1. The

applicant has preferred this application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the opponent and after holding the opponent guilty of deliberate and willful disobedience of order dated 18.2.2006 made in Special Civil Application No. 8143 of 2005, punish the opponent.

 

 

 

2. Heard

the learned advocate Mr. MR Prajapati for the applicants and Mr HA Dave for the opponent.

 

 

3. Both

the parties are husband and wife. Due to constant harassment, the applicant no. 1 started to live separately with opponent no. 2 and after living separately from opponent, it was difficult for the applicant no. 1 to survive with minor daughter Yuti ? applicant no. 2 herein, and therefore, applicant no. 1 has filed Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2001 before the 5th Jt. Civil Judge(JD), Junagadh, for getting maintenance amount of 36 months under section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which was partly allowed on 8.10.2003 against which the opponent had preferred First Appeal No. 361 of 2004 before this Court which was withdrawn on 26.10.2004. It appears that during the pendency of the First Appeal, due to non-compliance of the order dated 27.2.2004, the applicant had initiated contempt proceedings against the opponent by filing Misc. Civil Application No. 1598 of 2005 but it was rejected on 23.8.2005. That after withdrawal of the First Appeal, the applicant no. 1 has initiated execution proceedings against the opponent in the trial court by filing Special Darkhast No. 2 of 2004 and after hearing both the parties, the trial court issued attachment warrant against the opponent. Against the order of attachment warrant, the present opponent has approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 8143 of 2005 and obtained stay against execution proceedings. That after hearing learned advocates of both the parties, this Court has passed an order directing the opponent to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lac to the applicant on 24.10.2005. That before granting interim relief to the applicant, this Court has invited calculations regarding amount of maintenance from both the sides and after going through the said calculation, this Court has passed the said order dated 24.10.2005. In the above Special Civil Application No. 8143 of 2005, on 18.2.2006,this Court has passed the order, which reads as under:

 

 

 

 

1.Husband, petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 6000/- between 1st to 10th date of every month.

The

husband is directed to pay remaining amount i.e. Rs. 5,51,754/- within one month from the date of receipt of the writ.

If

the husband neglected to pay the amount, then he will have to pay 12% interest on the same.??

 

 

 

4. Despite

the above order passed by this Court, the present opponent has not complied with the said order, therefore, the applicant has issued legal notice to the opponent but as the opponent is alleged to have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 18.2.2006, the contempt proceedings was launched against the present opponent.

 

 

 

5. After

hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, opponent has filed the statement of the amount paid to the applicant and the amount due to be paid, on page No. 33 of this application. We have perused the said statement. In view of the statement, the applicant no. 1, who is staying at Junagadh, has sent a letter and clarified all due amount and has contended in paragraph-2 of her letter that due to unavoidable circumstances, that is, examination of her daughter, she was unable to come before this court, but if, the Court is required to hear the applicant no. 2, she is ready to come before this court.

 

 

 

6. We

have gone through the contents of the letter of applicant no. 1 and read the reply of opponent, it appears that there is delay in complying with the order passed by this Court, but from the contentions it appears that every person has a right to utilise the provisions of law. In the present case, opponent had challenged the order of the legal fraternity and try to get some justice in her favour. The conduct of the present opponent shows that when a person is utilising the provisions of law, then, none can say that he has disobeyed the order passed by this Court. From the statement in affidavit dated 9.3.2008 produced by the opponent, it appears that he has admitted all dues but from the said admission, it cannot be said that he has committed the contempt and willful disobedience of the order of this Court.

 

 

 

7. From

the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the goal of the applicant which is fulfilled by opponent’s statement, then there is nothing on record to say that the opponent has disobeyed the order of this Court.

 

 

 

8. In

view of aforesaid reasons, the present application is disposed of. No order as to costs. Notice discharged.

 

 

(D.A.

MEHTA, J.)

 

 

 

(Z.K.

SAIYED, J.)

 

mandora/

Advertisements
Categories: Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: