Bombay High Court
Sou. Snehal W/O Shekhar Malvi And ... vs Shekhar S/O Prakash Malvi And 3 ... on 1 July, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
20.cp.2.20.jud 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2 OF 2020
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.521 OF 2019
Petitioner : 1] Sou. Snehal W/o Shekhar Malvi,
Aged 30 years, Occ. Nil.
2] Ku. Anyukta D/o Shekhar Malvi,
Aged 4 years, (Minor - through Natural
Guardian Mother/Petitioner No.1).
Both residents of C/o Leena Pachkawade, Near
Jain Temple, Gandhi Square, Chandur Rly.,
District Amravati.
- Versus -
Respondents : 1] Shekhar S/o Prakash Malvi,
Aged 35 years, Occ. Service.
2] Smt. Pratibha Prakash Malvi,
Aged 70 years, Occ. Household.
Respondents No.1 and 2 residents of State Bank
Square, Gedam Nagar, Yavatmal
3] Sou. Aarti Rajeshrao Bodhankar,
Aged 44 years, Occ. Household,
Resident of Chapmenwadi, Yavatmal.
4] State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer, Chandur Rly.
Police Station, District Amravati.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. R.J. Shukla, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. D.V. Thakre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for Respondent No.4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
20.cp.2.20.jud 2/5
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE : 1st JULY, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard finally by consent of the parties.
02] The petitioners seek for initiation of contempt proceedings in terms
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for disobedience of the
common order, dated 12/07/2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.521 and 522 of
2019. It is contended that this Court while disposing both writ petitions
directed to pay certain amount of cost, which has not been complied and,
therefore, the contempt.
03] The learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would
submit that the common order dated 12/07/2019, of which contempt is
claimed, has been modified by this Court by two even date orders by which
the cost amount has been reduced and the same has been complied.
04] The respondent-husband has filed two transfer applications seeking
transfer of the D.V. Case No.12/2018 and criminal case R.C.C. No.157/2017
under Section 489-A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the applications were
rejected against which two writ petitions bearing Criminal Writ Petition
20.cp.2.20.jud 3/5
Nos.521 and 522 of 2019 have been filed. The coordinate bench of this Court
observed that both the petitions carry no merits and, accordingly, dismissed
the petitions by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- each. This Court further ordered
that the cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be deposited in D.V. Case No.12/2018 to be
paid to the respondent-wife and another cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to
the Taluka Legal Services Authority, Chandur Railway in R.C.C. No.157/2017.
Later on, both the orders were modified on 5 th August, 2019 by which this
Court has reduced the cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-
in each proceedings.
05] According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, this
Court, while disposing of both the writ petitions, has imposed cost of
Rs.25,000/- in each writ petition and additional cost of Rs.25,000/- each is
directed to be deposited in D.V. Case No.12/2018 and R.C.C. No.157/2012.
He would submit that this Court has reduced the earlier cost of Rs.25,000/- in
each petition to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, but there is no modification in
subsequent direction of paying cost separately directed to be paid in two
different proceedings.
06] On the other hand, the respondents' learned Counsel would submit
that this Court has awarded cost of Rs.25,000/- in each petition and towards
20.cp.2.20.jud 4/5
clarification, merely stated the mode and manner in which the cost amount is
to be paid. He would submit that after modification, the total cost amount
comes to Rs.20,000/-. The said cost of Rs.10,000/- each has been deposited
in both proceedings on 19/08/2019 of which receipts are produced.
07] There is no dispute that the respondents have deposited
Rs.20,000/- towards the costs. The only dispute is about interpretation of the
order of this Court. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of
common order dated 12/07/2019 is reproduced as below:
"13. Criminal Writ Petition 522/2019 and Criminal Writ
Petition 521/2019 are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to
be paid by the petitioners in each petition.
14. The petitioners shall deposit Rs.25,000/- in D.V.
Case 12/2018 within four weeks and the said amount shall be
paid to the respondent herein.
15. The petitioners shall further deposit Rs.25,000/- in
Regular Criminal Case 157/2017 which shall be paid to the
Taluka Legal Services Authority, Chandur Railway or District
Legal Services Authority, Amravati."
08] There is no dispute that the figure of Rs.25,000/- is modified to the
extent of Rs.10,000/-. Bare reading of the order postulates that this Court has
awarded cost of Rs.25,000/- each as per paragraph 13 of the order. The
20.cp.2.20.jud 5/5
subsequent paragraphs 14 and 15 only states about the manner in which costs
are to be paid. It does not mean that the reference of cost amount in
paragraphs 14 and 15 is in addition to the cost which has been imposed in
paragraph 13 of the order. The petitioners' learned Counsel has misread the
order in different manner to hold that those were additional costs. Therefore,
it is apparent that after modification total cost comes to the tune of
Rs.20,000/-. Admittedly, the same has been deposited and order has been
fully complied. Since, the said compliance is within couple of days from
modifications, there is no element of willful disobedience of the Court order.
In that view of the matter, the contempt petition carries no merit, hence
dismissed.
09] Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by:SANDESH DAULATRAO
WAGHMARE
Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Judge
Signing Date:06.07.2022 17:46
