THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CONTEMPT CASE No.668 OF 2020
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum- IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for not complying the orders of this Court dated 18.06.2018 in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 in M.C. No.124 of 2016.
2. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the petition submitting that she filed MC No.124 of 2016 against her husband on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBBC- cum-Additional Family Court-cum- IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad claiming maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- per month and also filed an interim maintenance application vide Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016 claiming an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- per month. The trial court vide order dated 04.11.2016 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband of the petitioner i.e. respondent in MC No.124 of 2016 and in Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016, preferred Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 to set aside the ex parte Dr.GRR,J 2 CC No.668 of 2020 order of interim maintenance and to provide an opportunity for him to contest the case. The petitioner also filed Crl.R.C. No.2483 of 2017 for enhancement of the interim maintenance to Rs.2,30,000/- per month. Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 was disposed of by this Court on 18.06.2018 observing that:
"In the result, this Crl.R.C is allowed and order dated 04.11.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.940/2016 is set aside and petitioner herein is permitted to appear before the Trial Court and contest the interim maintenance petition as well as main M.C. on the condition of his depositing interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- p.m from 18.04.2016 i.e, the date of filing of interim maintenance petition till disposal of M.C. The petitioner shall deposit arrears of interim maintenance accrued till date within eight (8) weeks from the date of this order and shall continue to deposit @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. by 5th of every succeeding month. The amount paid by him, shall be adjusted in the final maintenance. He shall file counters in interim maintenance application and main M.C. within six (6) weeks from the date of this order. Upon filing his counters, the Trial Court shall dispose of the interim maintenance application on merits expeditiously without being influenced by the amount tentatively awarded by this Court to the 2nd respondent. Needless to emphasize, the 2nd respondent herein is at liberty to claim and establish her entitlement of interim maintenance @ Rs.2,30,000/- p.m. as originally claimed by her and the petitioner has right to oppose the same. Failing to comply any of the above conditions by the petitioner, this order shall be deemed cancelled."
2.1 The petitioner contended that her husband had not complied with the conditional order in Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2017 as directed by this Court and failed to file the counter within six weeks of time. On 27.09.2018, the counsel of her husband, by name, Mr. T. Avinash paid Rs.4,80,000/- by demand draft and requested for some time to clear the entire arrears of interim maintenance. Thereafter, her husband or his Dr.GRR,J 3 CC No.668 of 2020 counsel had not attended the court. As the orders of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 were not complied, her husband was liable for contempt of court proceedings.
2.2 The petitioner further contended that the Family Court Judge, by suppressing the material fact that the non-bailable warrant was pending against her husband, and failing to mention that her husband was liable for contempt of court proceedings and that he had not complied the conditions of High Court's order in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 and failing to include the correct amount due by her husband, committed contempt of the court proceedings.
2.3 The respondent-Family Court Judge also dismissed the petition filed by her under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. to declare her husband as regular absconder/proclaimed offender though NBW was pending against him. As such, on 28.03.2019 she had lodged a complaint before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally and prayed to direct the Family Court Judge to dispose of MC No.124 of 2016 which was pending for final orders since six months i.e. from September, 2018. The Family Court Judge also dismissed the petition filed by her for seizure of passport of her husband on 12.04.2019. The counsel of her Dr.GRR,J 4 CC No.668 of 2020 husband had attended the court only twice in four years from April, 2016 to April, 2019 and her husband had attended only once before the trial court on 07.12.2016 and filed his counter. Her husband had not complied with the orders of this Court in paying the interim maintenance amount. Her NRI husband who was earning Rs.15.00 lakhs per month in London (UK Citizen) was managing and influencing the people for his own advantage.
2.4 The petitioner further submitted that the Family Court Judge had not taken into consideration her chief examination dated 07.09.2018 and not considered the written arguments which were submitted on 22.01.2019 and not considered the exhibits which were marked and violated the orders of this Court and gave the judgment awarding maintenance from the date of the order which led to mis-carriage of justice. She also mentioned in her chief examination that she would need Rs.3,50,000/- per month, but the trial court had given judgment as she asked for only Rs.3,00,000/- per month. The judgments cited by the trial court in the Order were also irrelevant. The respondent Judge willfully, wantonly and disobediently favoured her husband and violated the orders of this Court. The act of the Family Court Judge caused Dr.GRR,J 5 CC No.668 of 2020 severe mental, economical and emotional strain. She had given a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to take action against the contemnor, but no action had been taken. As such, she filed the present contempt case and prayed to punish the respondent for wantonly not complying with the orders of the High Court dated 18.06.2018 in Crl.R.C. No.484 of 2017 and passing orders in MC No.124 of 2016 dated 12.04.2019.
3. The respondent - contemnor filed counter affidavit submitting that she being a Judicial Officer had highest respect for the orders of this Court and that she had not committed any disobedience. As per the orders of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 dated 18.06.2018, the court gave an opportunity to the respondent therein (i.e. husband of the petitioner herein) to contest Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016 in MC No.124 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which was allowed ex parte awarding interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court. In the order dated 18.06.2018, it Dr.GRR,J 6 CC No.668 of 2020 was made clear that in the event, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions, the said order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 3.1 She further submitted that her predecessor in office conducted trial and posted the matter for orders, but he was transferred before the orders were pronounced. She assumed charge on 24.02.2019 and disposed of the MC itself. In the order of this Court, dated 18.06.2018, there was no direction to the court which was required to comply, it was for the petitioner therein who had to comply the conditions imposed therein. Therefore, the question of committing the contempt by the court would not arise.
3.2 She further submitted that she assumed charge as the Presiding Officer of the Court on 24.02.2019, by which time, the main MC No.124 of 2016 was posted for orders. The petitioner had filed her written arguments. After assuming charge, she heard the petitioner on 02.03.2019 and on 09.03.2019 and posted the matter for orders on 28.03.2019. As she was on leave on 28.03.2019 and 29.03.2019, the case was adjourned to 12.04.2019 for orders. She passed orders on 12.04.2019 in MC by allowing it and granting maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the order.
Dr.GRR,J 7 CC No.668 of 2020 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision vide Crl.R.C. No.902 of 2019. Within four adjournments, she had disposed of MC No.124 of 2016.
3.3 She further submitted that Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 was filed by the husband of the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the then Presiding Officer of the Court in Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for interim maintenance in MC No.124 of 2016. This Court by order dated 18.06.2018 allowed Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017. As per the docket proceedings in M.P. No.940 of 2016 in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 dated 18.06.2018, the said M.P. filed by the petitioner for interim maintenance was restored on 04.07.2019 by her predecessor. In the above MP, the respondent therein had not filed counter within six weeks as directed by this Court. As per the docket proceedings in Crl.M.P. No.2239 of 2016 in MC No.124 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for arrears of Interim maintenance, the respondent therein had not paid arrears of interim maintenance or monthly interim maintenance as directed by this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 within eight weeks. As the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 (husband of the petitioner herein) had failed to Dr.GRR,J 8 CC No.668 of 2020 comply the conditions imposed in the said case, the orders in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 stood cancelled. Therefore, the question of non- compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 18.06.2018 would not arise.
3.4 She further submitted that as per the record, after the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 stood cancelled, the then Presiding Officer proceeded to conduct enquiry in the main MC itself and the petitioner had cooperated for it. The petitioner was examined as PW.1. However, the respondent therein had not participated in the trial. By order dated 12.04.2019, she allowed the MC on the basis of evidence available on record and after hearing the petitioner thereby granting maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month from the date of the order. The allegation that she disobeyed the order and therefore, was liable for contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, would not arise and the said allegation was misconceived and untenable.
3.5 She further submitted that as per the record and docket proceedings in MP No.2239 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for arrears of interim maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., NBWs issued against Dr.GRR,J 9 CC No.668 of 2020 the respondent were returned by the concerned police vide letter dated 25.01.2017 unexecuted on the ground that the respondent therein was staying in UK. On 28.04.2017, the then Presiding Officer issued warrant under Section 421 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, vide docket order dated 04.07.2018, the petition was closed stating that "in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 dated 18.06.2018, the petitioner is estopped to proceed with this petition." 3.6 The respondent submitted that the petitioner made false and baseless allegations. At one stage, the petitioner stated that her husband was liable for contempt of court proceedings as he had not complied with the conditions of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 and at another stage, contrary to the pleadings, she contended that the respondent had not complied the said order and thereby committed the contempt of court.
3.7 She further submitted that as per the docket proceedings, dated 27.09.2018, on behalf of the respondent, Sri T. Avinash, Advocate had given a demand draft for Rs.4,80,000/- to the petitioner. The said payment was made after eight weeks i.e. after the order of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 stood cancelled. The said Rs.4,80,000/- was Dr.GRR,J 10 CC No.668 of 2020 not the entire arrears of interim maintenance as directed by the High Court in the said order. While passing the final order in MC, she directed the respondent therein to pay the arrears of interim maintenance due by him within four weeks from the date of the order. It was not possible for the Court to calculate the arrears of interim maintenance in any case and it was for the petitioner to calculate the same by deducting the amount paid by the respondent if any and to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the due amount. The order passed by the then Presiding Officer in Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016 for interim maintenance by the petitioner would hold good as the order of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 stood cancelled for non-compliance of the conditions imposed therein by the respondent in MC. Accordingly, the petitioner filed petition under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. calculating interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month and the same was pending. 3.8 The allegations of the petitioner about the complaint given to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge on 28.03.2.019 praying to direct the Family Court Judge to dispose of the MC No.124 of 2016 would show that the petitioner was pressing for final disposal of the main MC itself. She further submitted that Crl.M.P. No.228 of 2016 filed by the petitioner Dr.GRR,J 11 CC No.668 of 2020 for seizure of passport of the respondent was dismissed on 12.04.2019 by a detailed and reasoned order without any delay. As the court had to take into consideration the maintenance granted in other proceedings between the same parties, she accordingly, referred the maintenance granted in DVC. The amount of maintenance claimed by the petitioner @ Rs.3,50,000/- in her chief examination could not be taken into consideration in the absence of any amendment to the petition to that effect as she had claimed Rs.3,00,000/- per month towards maintenance in MC. MC No.124 of 2016 was disposed of by her by taking into consideration the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the petitioner. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed in MC No.124 of 2016, she could avail the appropriate remedy available to her under law and the petitioner had already filed Crl.R.C. No.902 of 2019 against the orders passed in MC No.124 of 2016 dated 12.04.2019. The order passed by this Court in Crl.RC No.494 of 2017 dated 18.06.2018 stood cancelled by the date she assumed the charge of the office, hence, the question of non-compliance of the said order and committing contempt by her would not arise and prayed to dismiss the contempt case.
Dr.GRR,J 12 CC No.668 of 2020 3.9 There is no representation for the petitioner. The proceedings would disclose that the petitioner appeared as party in person and she was an Advocate but subsequently, sought time to appoint another Advocate on her behalf and subsequently to verify the procedure for appointing a legal aid counsel before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad. The record also would disclose that a legal aid counsel appeared before this Court on behalf of the petitioner on 01.08.2022 and submitted that the petitioner had not met her as such, she was unable to file Vakalat. The petitioner failed to appear before this Court either as a party in person or failed to give Vakalat to the legal aid counsel or to engage any other counsel on her behalf.
4. Heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. The record would disclose that the petitioner had filed MC No.124 of 2016 claiming maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- per month and that she also filed Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016 claiming interim maintenance of Rs.2,30,000/- per month. The respondent remained ex parte in Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2016. As such, the trial court passed order in Crl.M.P.No.940 of 2016 on 04.11.2016 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month as against the claim of Dr.GRR,J 13 CC No.668 of 2020 Rs.2,30,000/- per month by the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner filed Crl.RC No.494 of 2017 to set aside the award of interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner filed Crl.R.C. No.2483 of 2017 for enhancement of amount of Rs.25,000/- per month awarded by the trial court. This Court vide order dated 18.06.2018 allowed the Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 observing that:
"In the result, this Crl.R.C is allowed and order dated 04.11.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.940/2016 is set aside and petitioner herein is permitted to appear before the Trial Court and contest the interim maintenance petition as well as main M.C. on the condition of his depositing interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- p.m from 18.04.2016 i.e, the date of filing of interim maintenance petition till disposal of M.C. The petitioner shall deposit arrears of interim maintenance accrued till date within eight (8) weeks from the date of this order and shall continue to deposit @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. by 5th of every succeeding month. The amount paid by him, shall be adjusted in the final maintenance. He shall file counters in interim maintenance application and main M.C. within six (6) weeks from the date of this order. Upon filing his counters, the Trial Court shall dispose of the interim maintenance application on merits expeditiously without being influenced by the amount tentatively awarded by this Court to the 2nd respondent. Needless to emphasize, the 2nd respondent herein is at liberty to claim and establish her entitlement of interim maintenance @ Rs.2,30,000/- p.m. as originally claimed by her and the petitioner has right to oppose the same. Failing to comply any of the above conditions by the petitioner, this order shall be deemed cancelled."
6. This Court also closed the Crl.R.C. No.2483 of 2017 in view of the orders passed in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017. The petitioner in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017 i.e. the respondent in MC No.124 of 2016 (husband of the petitioner herein) failed to comply with the orders of this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017, wherein he was directed to pay interim Dr.GRR,J 14 CC No.668 of 2020 maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month from 18.04.2016 i.e. from the date of filing of interim maintenance petition till disposal of MC. He was also directed to deposit the arrears of interim maintenance accrued till date within eight weeks from the date of the order and was directed to continue to deposit interim maintenance at Rs.20,000/- per month by 5th of every succeeding month. He was also directed to file counters in the interim maintenance application and in the main MC within six weeks from the date of the order. But, he failed to comply with the said order. He only deposited an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- on 27.09.2018 through his counsel, that too, after eight weeks of time as directed by this Court and it was also not the entire arrears of interim maintenance as directed by this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017. He also filed counter only in the main MC but failed to file his counter in the interim maintenance application. The trial court vide order dated 06.12.2018 in MP No.940 of 2016 adopted the counter filed by him in the main case as the counter in the MP. As the husband of the petitioner failed to file the counter within the time stipulated by this Court as well as failed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as directed by this Court and failed to comply the orders of this court, wherein he was directed to deposit maintenance at Rs.20,000/- per month, the orders in Crl.R.C. No.494 of Dr.GRR,J 15 CC No.668 of 2020 2017 stand cancelled and the orders in Crl.M.P. No.940 of 2016 passed by the trial court on 04.11.2016 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month would stand revived. As such, there is no question of the respondent herein committing contempt or violating the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017.
7. The other allegations made by the revision petitioner against the respondent are untenable as the trial court disposed of the main MC itself within a short period. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said judicial order, she could seek appropriate remedy and she had already availed the remedy by filing Crl.R.C. No.902 of 2019. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the contempt case filed by the petitioner against the respondent Judicial Officer with regard to non-compliance of the orders in Crl.R.C. No.494 of 2017.
8. In the result, the Contempt Case is dismissed as it is found to be devoid of any merit.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J October 17, 2022 KTL