Karnataka High Court
Roshini Jeanne Miranda vs Andrew Pradeep Raj on 6 January, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB
CCC No. 510 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.510 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ROSHINI JEANNE MIRANDA
S/O. ENGINEER GERAD VENANTIUS MIRANDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT A-101, SALARPURIA SATTVA ASPIRE
NEXT TO UNITED PUBLIC SCHOOL
CHIKKAGUBBI, HENNUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 077.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ANDREW PRADEEP RAJ
S/O. MR. MICHAEL RAJ KETCHAGNATHAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT 35A
HIGH STREET, HEMEL, HEMPSTEAD
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA HP 1 3AA, ENGLAND
NAGARATHNA UNITED KINGDOM.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...ACCUSED
KARNATAKA
(BY SMT. SREEJAYA N. V., ADVOCATE, FOR SMT. LATHA SHETTY)
***
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS
10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH
ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH
THE ACCUSED FOR HIS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED
05.12.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN M.C. NO.2586 OF 2020, AND ETC.
THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB
CCC No. 510 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This contempt proceedings has been initiated by the
complainant under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, (for short, 'Act') read with Article 215 of the
Constitution of India against the accused for his disobedience of
the order dated 5-12-2020 passed by the III Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Matrimonial Case
No.2586 of 2020 and the orders dated 13-1-2023, 23-1-2023
and 15-2-2023 passed by the III Additional Family Judge,
Bengaluru, in Execution No.81 of 2022.
2. Smt. Sreejaya N.V., learned counsel representing
Smt. Latha Shetty, learned counsel for the accused, submits
that there is no disobedience of the orders passed by the
Family Court, and the proceedings in Execution No.81 of 2022
are pending for adjudication before the decree holder and the
judgment debtor. She further submits that the present
contempt proceedings are not maintainable as there is delay in
initiation of the contempt proceedings.
NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB
3. In this contempt proceedings, I.A. No.1 of 2023 has
been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for
condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the contempt petition.
4. Keeping in view the submission made by learned
counsel for the accused, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No court
shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on
its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the
contempt is alleged to have been committed."
5. Further, keeping in view the provisions of Section 20
of the Act, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S. TIRUPATHI RAO v. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein at paragraph
No.53, it has observed as under:
"53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case
of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt,
which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose
a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The
statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from
NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB
the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be
initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav
Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought
within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when
the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually
initiated by the high court."
6. Therefore, keeping in view Section 20 of the Act and so
also, the reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra,
there is no substance to consider I.A. No.1 of 2023 for
condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the contempt petition.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2023 is dismissed.
Even on merits, there is no substance to consider this
contempt petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this
contempt petition is hereby closed.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
