Karnataka High Court
Smt.Y.M.Sumathi @ Hemavathi vs Sri.Y.M.Channabasappa on 23 January, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB
CCC No. 80 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD 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.80 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. Y. M. SUMATHI @ HEMAVATHI
W/O. LATE Y. M. SHIVANANDA
51 YEARS
D/O. SRI B. KOTRESHI
D. NO.5/144-32, BY PASS ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR BADAVANI, HUVINAHADAGALI
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
NOW RESIDING AT
KRCC SOCIETY
BEHIND POST OFFICE, MAIN ROAD
HOOVINA HADAGALI
BELLARY - 583 219.
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA 2. KUM. SHWETHA
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH
D/O. LATE Y. M. SHIVANANDA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT KRCC SOCIETY
BEHIND POST OFFICE
MAIN ROAD, HOOVINA HADAGALI
BELLARY - 583 219.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI ALFRED AARON JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, SUNDARSWAMY AND
RAMDAS, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB
CCC No. 80 of 2023
AND:
SRI Y. M. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O. MOTHI DODDAPPA
AGED 97 YEARS
LANDLORD
283/3, OPP. VISHWESWARAYYA PARK
4TH MAIN, P. J. EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE - 2
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI G. B. NANDISH GOWDA FOR;
SRI R. B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATES)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACTS, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE
PRAYS TO TAKE CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS DATED
12.04.2010 AND 01.03.2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON
MISC NO.2547/2010 AND I.A.NO.2/2013 RESPECTIVELY IN R.F.A.
NO.232/2010 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB
CCC No. 80 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
Sri Alfred Aaron Joseph representing Sri Pradeep S.
Sawkar, counsel for the complainants seeks for short
accommodation on the premise that the arguing counsel on
record is not feeling well.
2. This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the
complainants in respect of the orders dated 12.04.2010 and
01.03.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Misc.No.2547/2010
and I.A.No.2/2013, respectively in RFA No.232/2010, seeking
for a direction against respondent No.1/accused herein, to pay
maintenance to the appellants/complainants at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
3. Learned counsel Sri G. B. Nandish Gowda and
Sri R. B. Sadashivappa appear on behalf of respondent
No.1/accused.
4. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to refer to Section 20
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wherein, the said
provision of law reveals as under:
NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt:-
No Court shall initiate any proceedings of
contempt, either or its own motion or otherwise, after
the expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which the contempt is alleged have been committed."
5. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, it is
deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. TIRUPATHI
RAO Vs. M.LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein, in paragraph No.53 of the said
judgment, it is revealed 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 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 the aforesaid judgment
and also the fact this contempt proceeding has been initiated
by the complainants to take contempt action against
NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB
respondent No.1/accused and the provisions of Section 2(b)
and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
and the fact that there is an interim order passed in RFA
No.232/2010, this contempt proceedings do not survive for
consideration and consequently, the same is hereby dropped
even on the limitation point also.
7. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2023 stands dismissed even
on merits.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
PHM
