Gujarat High Court
Suo-Motu vs Vallabhkumar Nanjibhai Kakadiya on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/MCA/2122/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2122 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RECALL) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2122 of 2015
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1272 of 2016
In
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2122 of 2015
=============================================
SUO-MOTU
Versus
VALLABHKUMAR NANJIBHAI KAKADIYA
=============================================
Appearance:
MR BJ TRIVEDI(921) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JT TRIVEDI(931) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI(3090) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SUO MOTU(25) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PT JASANI(361) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 20/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR)
[1] This contempt proceedings have been initiated by
virtue of order passed on 01.07.2015.
[2] The Suo-Motu petition, namely, Misc. Civil Application
C/MCA/2122/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021
(For Contempt) No. 2122 of 2015 in Civil Application
No.4091 of 2015 in First Appeal No.1605 of 2010 is a
result of the applicant wife of respondent Vallabhkumar
Nanjibhai Kakadiya having filed Family Suit No.769 of
2005 before the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad
seeking for maintenance and Family Suit No. 971 of 2005
seeking for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which resulted in claiming
maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month by invoking Section
125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1978. A common
judgment came to be passed by the Family Court,
Ahmedabad on 18.09.2009 whereunder the Family Suit
No. 769 of 2005 was allowed and respondent was directed
to pay maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month and House
No. B/105 of Akshardeep Apartment at Bhavnagar, where
the wife was staying, was ordered not to be vacated by
her till her death and respondent husband was directed to
pay the rent and other maintenance etc. The suit for
restitution of conjugal rights came to be dismissed as also
the Criminal Misc. Application No. 2080 of 2005 filed under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Against the said judgment and
C/MCA/2122/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021
decree First Appeal No.1605 of 2010 has been filed and
intriguingly the same is pending before this Court for the
past 11 years. The appeal filed by the wife challenging
the dismissal of the suit filed for restitution of conjugal
rights in First Appeal No. 529 of 2010 is also pending and
an order was passed for payment of maintenance at the
rate of Rs. 18,000/- per month vide order dated
09.07.2010. Several orders have been passed including
the order dated 01.07.2015 under which it was ordered
that the respondent husband has willfully disobeyed the
order of the Court and as such contempt should be
initiated for disobedience of the order. It is also not in
dispute for executing the order passed by the Family
Court, Execution Petition is said to have been filed by the
applicant wife before the jurisdictional Family Court. Be
that as it may. This Court by order dated 08.02.2016 had
observed that till March 2015, the amount due and
payable was around Rs. 35 lakhs. Even according to the
judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, the
contemner was required to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per
month from 30.08.2005, which would be for a period of
C/MCA/2122/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021
196 months as on today. The amount payable would be
Rs. 58,80,000/-. This Court on several occasions have
made attempts to settle the disputes between the parties
and by order dated 04.12.2018 it was observed as under:
"19. The facts so recorded and orders reproduced
hereinabove reveal that the conduct of the
respondent husband is not only for civil contempt but
on the face of it, it is also for criminal contempt and,
therefore, though charge is framed for which,
explanation was sought for, in view of admission on
the part of the respondent husband in para 4 of the
order dated 19.4.2018 passed by this Court about
pendency of arrears payable towards maintenance,
we would like to proceed further by passing an order
under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
since even as on the date of passing the order, no
remorse is shown by the respondent nor any
willingness is shown to pay even 1/4th amount i.e.
Rs.10.5 lakhs out of outstanding dues pending and
admitted by the respondent of Rs.42.00 lakhs."
[3] During the pendency of the present proceedings, a
Demand Draft for Rs. 12 Lakh was paid / deposited, which
was also outdated, and as such, we have permitted the
counsel for the contemner to take return of the Demand
Draft which was expiring to replace the same or substitute
C/MCA/2122/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021
the same with a fresh Demand Draft. Accordingly, the
same has been deposited as per the note made by the
Registry. Further, pursis of the appellant filed today would
indicate that the respondent has taken out Demand Draft
of Rs.23 Lakhs, the details of which are as under:
"PURSIS OF THE OPPONENT
As per order dated of 1/12/2021 the below detailed
demand drafts renewed and required to be submitted
today:
No. Date DD No. Name of Bank Amount
1. 14/11/2019 10194 Axis Bank 5,00,000/-
2. 10/12/2019 10312 " 6,00,000/-
3. 17/01/2020 10492 " 6,00,000/-
4. 09/03/2020 10714 " 6,00,000/-
Accordingly the opponent herein submitting all four
renewed demand drafts dated 18/12/2021 in the
name of Parulben Vallabhbhai Kakadiya today which
may be taken on custody of the Honourable Court
and oblige.
Place : Ahmedabad
Date : 20/12/2021 ______________________
Dr.Vallabhbhai N. Kakadiya
(Opponent)"
C/MCA/2122/2015 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2021
[4] The said Demand Drafts are handed over to the
applicant wife in Misc. Civil Application No. 2122 of 2015,
namely, Smt. Parulben Vallabhbhai Kakadiya in the open
Court.
[5] The amounts paid or deposited by the contemner
and received by the applicant would be without prejudice
to her rights and continuation of this contempt
proceedings in view of the amount having been paid and
the execution petition still pending would not be
warranted. Accordingly, contempt proceedings are
dropped. The parties are at liberty to work out their rights
in the pending First Appeal No.1605 of 2010 as well as in
the pending execution proceedings.
[6] All pending applications stand consigned to records.
(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
