Smt. Gadepally Nama Lakshmi Suman vs Smt P. Neeraja
2022 Latest Caselaw 5146 Tel

         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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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