Karnataka High Court
G C Deepa vs J. Keshava Murthy on 23 August, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
-1-
CCC No. 1789 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. G. C. DEEPA,
D/O SRI. CHOWDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1340,
9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU - 560072.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI H.N. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. J. KESHAVA MURTHY,
S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.68,
VASTU LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS,
KUDLU, MADIWALA POST,
Digitally signed by SARJAPURA HOBLI,
GAVRIBIDANUR ANEKAL TALUK,
SUBRAMANYA BENGALURU - 560068.
GUPTA SREENATH
Location: High
...ACCUSED
Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVI GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
*****
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 READ WITH
SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971,
-2-
CCC No. 1789 of 2019
BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBDIENCE OF THE ORDERS
DATED 18.02.2019 AND 16.09.2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT
IN W.P.NO.55090/2018 (GM-FC).
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The unfortunate complainant/wife filed the present contempt petition to take action against the accused/husband under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019 made in Writ Petition No.55090/2018.
2. The learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing off the writ petition by the order dated 18.2.2019, has passed the order as under:
"Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the amount as directed by the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today."-3- CCC No. 1789 of 2019
3. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 16.9.2019, has extended time for depositing the amount of maintenance by a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
I. Brief facts of the case
4. It is the case of the complainant that she is the wife of the accused and due to the harassment from the accused, she filed Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 against the accused under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Domestic Violence Act' for short). In the said matter, Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru by the order dated 19.1.2012 directed the present accused/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month to the complainant/wife and also a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month towards the medical expenses.
5. It is further case of the complainant that the accused filed Matrimonial Case against the complainant in M.C. No.914/2015, which was pending on the file of the IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. In the said petition, the complainant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance. The Family Court by the order -4- CCC No. 1789 of 2019 dated 1.6.2017 allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the present complainant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Judge also observed that maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate in the Domestic Violence Case in Crl.M.C. No.44/2021 shall be adjusted.
6. Being aggrieved, the accused filed Writ Petition No.55090/2018 before this Court praying to quash the order dated 1.6.2017 passed in M.C. No.914/2015. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the present complainant/wife has confined her prayer of maintainer only to the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, the petition came to disposed of with a direction to the present accused to deposit the maintenance amount as directed by the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
7. Since the accused not complied the said order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2019, initially the complainant filed CCC No.1062/2019. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the accused filed an application in -5- CCC No. 1789 of 2019 Writ Petition No.55090/2018 for extension of time to deposit the maintenance amount. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 16.9.2019 has granted six weeks time from the said date for depositing the maintenance amount. Accordingly, the coordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 24.9.2019 dropped the contempt proceedings considering the fact that the learned Single Judge has given six weeks time from 16.9.2019 to the accused to deposit the maintenance amount.
8. Despite extending time for depositing the amount by the order dated 16.9.2019, the accused has not deposited the maintenance amount. It is the specific case of the complainant that inspite of the order passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month, she confined her prayer of maintenance only to the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Admittedly in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 19.1.2012, in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, has partly allowed the petition and directed the present accused/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per -6- CCC No. 1789 of 2019 month to the complainant as well as her son from the date of the said order. The said order has reached finality by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019.
9. Since the accused has not complied the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present contempt petition came to be filed on 13.11.2019 to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019 made in Writ Petition No.55090/2018. Even when the matter came up before this court today (23.8.2022), learned counsel for the accused has not complied the orders. Thus, the contempt proceedings are dragged from the year 2019 till today and the orders passed by the learned Single in the writ petition so also the orders passed by this Court in the present contempt petition to pay the maintenance amount, have not been complied with.
II. Statement of objections filed by the accused
10. The accused filed statement of objections contending that the contempt petition is not maintainable under Sections -7- CCC No. 1789 of 2019 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for the following reasons -
- Lacks jurisdiction and alternative remedy provided under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- The complainant had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition at Bangalore under the provisions of Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act for execution of the award and still it is pending.
- The complainant had filed M.C. No.4963/2017 under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage At, 1955 for dissolving the marriage dated 24.11.2014 solemnized between the complainant and the accused.
- The complainant had also filed Ex.P94/2019 on the file of the Prl. Family Judge Court at Bangalore.
11. It is further contended that the complainant is having strong economical edifice. In support of the same, the accused emphatically produced the copy of the registered sale deed dated 22.12.1999 standing in the name of the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant has -8- CCC No. 1789 of 2019 filed O.S. No.257/2013 before the Family Court, in which she has produced statement of Account (Ex.P7 in O.S. No.257/2013), which depicts that she has sufficient income. The accused produced the receipt No.57665543 dated 18.4.2008 relating to payment made towards Bangalore Electricity Supply Company showing complainant as consumer and similarly the accused produced the receipts dated 19.4.2018 relating to payments made towards Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board showing complainant as consumer. The accused also produced copies of the building sketch showing the residential building at Site No.52, 5th Cross, 'C' Block, Malagala Nagarbhavi, 2nd Stage, Bangalore. The accused further produced the copy of the grand new house opening ceremony photos as per Annexures R14 & R15. The accused also produced the modern high-tech on Sea & under Sea World & Jumping photos of the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant is an employee of 'MPHASIS company' and she is leading very modern luxurious life and the question of payment maintenance does not arise at all.
12. The accused had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.425/2020 before the learned Single Judge of this Court -9- CCC No. 1789 of 2019 challenging the proceedings of trial Court filed under Domestic Violence Act, wherein the learned Single Judge has issued emergent notice to the complainant. Therefore, when the matter seized before the learned Single Judge, the proceedings before this Court are not feasible. In the circumstances, the accused sought to drop the present contempt proceedings.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. III. Arguments advanced by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant
14. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the accused has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019 made in Writ Petition No.55090/2018. Learned counsel while reiterating the case of the complainant/wife, has mainly contended that initially the complainant filed Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 against the present accused/husband under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and in the said matter, the learned Magistrate directed the accused to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- to the complainant. Subsequently,
- 10 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 the complainant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance in M.C. No.914/2015 and the Family court by the order dated 1.6.2017 granted maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and while passing the said order, the Family Court observed that maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate under the Domestic Violence case in Crl.M.C No.44/2011 shall be adjusted. Being aggrieved, the accused filed Writ Petition No.55090/2018 before this Court. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court, the complainant has confined her prayer for maintenance only to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the present accused to deposit the amount as directed by the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In fact, the jurisdictional Court in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 by the order dated 19.1.2012 has directed the accused to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month and the said order has reached finality by virtue of the order dated 18th February 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 16.9.2019 taking into
- 11 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 consideration that the accused has suffered due to paralysis attack, has extended time for depositing the maintenance amount by a period of six weeks.
15. Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the accused has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019 so also the order dated 19.1.2012 made in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 directing to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month. He also contended that the matter was being dragged from the year 2019 till today and the accused liable to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month, in terms of the order dated 19.1.2012 made in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 and therefore, the accused was due to pay a sum of Rs.22,10,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakhs ten thousand only) to the complainant, but not paid single paisa. When the present contempt petition came up before the Court on 16.6.2022 though an attempt was made by the accused to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.94 of Kadanahalli village in lieu of the amount due, the same was not accepted by the complainant on the ground that value of the property is approximately
- 12 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 Rs.7,00,000/- and the amount due is Rs.22,10,000/-. Therefore, this court has proceeded to pass further orders. He further contended that the accused has not produced any relevant material documents to prove that he is not in a position to pay maintenance to the wife. The documents produced along with the objections are not relevant to this case as the order passed by the Magistrate dated 19.1.2012 in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 has reached finality by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019. He further contended that though this Court granted sufficient opportunities to the accused to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month, in terms of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.MC No.44/2011, he has not paid the maintenance amount and thereby, he has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.2.2019 and 16.9.2019 and therefore, no mercy can be shown to the accused. He also contended that while recording the plea, the accused pleaded guilty and has admitted that he is liable to pay Rs.22.10,000/- to the complainant. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 as long back as on 19.01.2012 and now, we are in August-2022 and more than 10 years has elapsed
- 13 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 and a sum of Rs.22,10,000/- is due, but the accused has not paid a single paisa and therefore, no leniency can be shown to the accused. In the circumstances, this is a fit case to punish the accused under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
IV. Arguments advanced by Sri Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar, learned counsel for the accused
16. Per contra, Sri Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar, learned counsel for the accused admitted that initially the complainant/wife filed Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 against the accused under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and in the said matter, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 19.01.2012, has awarded maintenance of Rs.24,000/ per month. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No.914/2015 and the Family Court by the order dated 1.6.2017 granted maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, the accused filed Writ Petition No.55090/2018 and when the said matter came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court, the complainant herself has confined her prayer of maintenance only to the provisions under the Domestic
- 14 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 Violence Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed off by the order dated 18.2.2019 with a direction to the accused to deposit maintenance amount as directed by the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. Thus, learned counsel contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011 dated 19.1.2012 has reached finality by virtue of the orders passed in the writ petition.
17. Learned counsel further contended that it is not in dispute that subsequently on the application filed by the accused for extension of time to pay the maintenance, by order dated 16/09/2019 this Court extended six weeks time to pay the maintenance. Admittedly, the said order was not complied. It is also not in dispute that earlier when the complainant filed contempt petition in CCC.No.1062/2019, the accused has filed a memo enclosing the certified copy of order dated 16/09/2019 stating that six weeks time may be granted to pay the maintenance. Therefore, the said contempt was dropped.
18. Learned counsel would further contend that the Court should not take hard steps or decision against the accused as he is a heart patient and that the accused has to
- 15 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 look after his old age parents. The accused had landed property to the extent of 27 guntas in Sy.No.94 of Kadanahalli village of Malur Taluk and he decided to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant and the same was not accepted by the complainant. Today (23/08/2022), the accused filed Undertaking Affidavit before this Court stating that he would pay a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month in terms of the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate on 19/01/2012 in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 (Old Crl.M.C.No.1971/2009), thereby sought to drop the proceedings.
V. The Point for determination
19. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the complainant has made out a case to punish the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in violation of the order dated 19/01/2012 passed in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 and the order dated 18/02/2019, passed in W.P.No.52090/2018 as well as the order dated 16/09/2019 extending six weeks time to pay the maintenance amount in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case?
- 16 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
20. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully.
VI. Consideration
21. It is the specific case of the complainant that by order dated 19/01/2012, passed by the III Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 awarded maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the said order has reached finality. Family Court, in M.C.No.914/2015, on I.A.No.3 filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. The maintenance awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 shall be adjusted. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the accused filed W.P. No.55090/2018 before this Court. Learned single Judge after hearing both the parties, on 18/02/2019 disposed of the writ petition and passed the following order:
"4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent - wife can seek maintenance only under one
- 17 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
of the provisions namely, either under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or under the Domestic Violence Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has confined her prayer of maintenance only to the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the amount as directed by the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today."
Thereby, the wife confined her prayer only to the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 for payment of maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month. It is also not in dispute that on the application I.A.No.I/2019 filed by the accused, this Court by order dated 16/09/2019 extended time by six weeks for depositing the amount of maintenance.
- 18 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019
22. Inspite of the orders passed by the Family Court, learned Metropolitan Magistrate and learned single Judge of this Court, the accused has not complied with the orders by not paying the maintenance amount. Thereby, the complainant/wife approached this Court by filing the contempt petition.
23. The contempt proceeding is dragged from the year 2019 till today and further, the orders passed by this Court in the contempt proceeding to pay the maintenance has not been complied with. When the matter was posted on 09/06/2021, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to prevalent Pandemic, respondent is not able to pay the maintenance amount and hence, the matter was posted on 14/06/2021, on which date, none appeared on both sides and the matter was adjourned to 21/06/2021 and re-listed on 22/06/2022, but none appeared for the parties. Again the matter was listed on 01/07/2021, on which date, non-bailable warrant was issued against the contemnor returnable by 15/07/2021. When the matter was posted on 15/07/2021, the matter was adjourned to 30/07/2021 awaiting for report in respect of non-bailable warrant already issued.
- 19 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019
24. When the matter came up on 03/08/2021, the accused appeared in-person in virtual Court and submitted that due to injury to his leg, he was unable to be present physically before the Court and he also submitted that he would deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 15/08/2021 and the non- bailable warrant issued was kept in abeyance and it was ordered that in the event the said amount is not deposited, the jurisdictional police to execute the warrant on 17/08/2021 without fail. On 17/08/2021, the non-bailable warrant was executed and the accused was brought before the Court and learned counsel for the accused filed a memo enclosing photocopy of a demand draft bearing No.515640 dated 16/08/2021 drawn on ICICI Bank, Bangalore-Hosur Road Branch, for a sum of Rs.49,999/- in favour of the complainant/wife and stated that the demand draft was dispatched to the complainant by courier and the accused submitted that the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- as undertaken by him on 03/08/2021 and would be paid to the complainant on 06/09/2021 and the matter was re-listed on 06/09/2021, on which date, learned counsel for the accused on instructions from the accused who was present before the Court submitted that out of Rs.3,30,000/- which was due on
- 20 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 that day, he was ready to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by 07/09/2021 without fail, but on 07/09/2021, neither the counsel nor the accused was present before the Court even when the matter was called for the second time. Hence, ordered to issue non-bailable warrant to the accused through the jurisdictional police and the jurisdictional police was ordered to keep the accused present before the Court on 20/09/2021.
25. On 20/09/2021, learned counsel for the accused filed a copy of demand draft bearing No.527474 dated 08/09/2021, drawn on ICICI Bank, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and submitted the demand draft has been dispatched to the complainant by courier. According to learned counsel for the complainant, as on 20/09/2021, in terms of the order of learned single Judge, a sum of Rs.25,80,000/- was due. Therefore, this Court directed learned counsel for the accused to file a memo of calculations as to what was the amount due as on that date. Being responsible officers of the Court, learned counsel for the parties were directed to assist the Court without wasting public time. The accused had undertaken to appear before the Court on the next date of
- 21 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 hearing and hence, the non-bailable warrant was recalled and the accused was ordered to be released forthwith and to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing i.e., on 29/09/2021, on which date, when the case was called, the accused was not present. I.A.No.3/2021 came to be filed by the accused under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. praying to exempt appearance of the accused before the Court on 29/09/2021, wherein memorandum of facts was not accompanied. However, in the interest of justice, I.A.No.3/2021 was allowed exempting the appearance of the accused on 29/09/2021, with a warning to learned counsel for the accused not to repeat such mistakes in future. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 18/04/2022, this Court issued bailable warrant against the accused returnable by 07/06/2022 subject to furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-.
VII. Orders passed this Court in the present Contempt Petition
26. When the matter came up before this Court on 09/06/2022, this Court passed a detailed order as under:
"In spite of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by this Court and even after issuing Non-Bailable Warrant
- 22 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
to the accused, the accused has not complied with the order.
The present contempt petition has been filed by the complainant to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2019 made in W.P. No.52090/2018, wherein the order in M.C. No.914/2015 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore was modified as the complainant, who was respondent in W.P. No.55090/2018 confined the maintenance at Rs.24,000/- per month in terms of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru dated 19.01.2012 in Crl.M.C. No.44/2011. Accordingly, this Court after hearing both the parties, on 18.02.2019 disposed of the petition and directed the present accused to deposit the amount as directed by the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2019 has reached finality.
When the matter came up before this Court on 20.09.2021, this Court passed the following order. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"According to the learned counsel for the complainant, as on today, in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, due is a
- 23 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
sum of Rs.25,80,000/-. But, learned counsel for the accused is not in a position to inform the Court as to what is the amount due as on today."
Today, Sri. Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Goudar, learned counsel for the accused submits that a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- has been paid to the complainant as maintenance pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2021 however the accused is due a sum of Rs.22,10,000/-.
It is also relevant to note that on 18.04.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court issued a bailable warrant against the accused returnable on 07.06.2022 subject to furnishing of bail bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and posted the matter to 07.06.2022.
On 20.09.2021, this Court while recalling the earlier warrant, directed the accused to be present before the Court.
Today, learned counsel for the accused is present but neither the accused is present nor has he paid the maintenance amount of Rs.22,10,000/-. Therefore, it is a fit case to frame the charge.
Issue Non-Bailable Warrant to the accused through the jurisdictional police and the jurisdictional police to ensure the presence of the accused before the Court on the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 16.06.2022 to frame the charge."
- 24 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019
27. When the matter was posted on 16/06/2022, this Court passed the following order:
"Though the matter is listed for framing of charges, Sri Hanumanthappa B.Haravi Goudar, learned Counsel for the accused has filed the affidavit stating that the accused is having only an extent of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.94, situated at Kadadanahalli village of Malur Taluk, and the property is worth about approximately Rs.25 lakhs and he has decided to sell the same and pay the amount. He further submits that the accused is also ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant - his wife in consideration of the amount of Rs.22 lakhs due to be paid by the accused to his wife. The affidavit is placed on record.
Learned counsel for the complainant seeks time to secure the instructions of the complainant.
Both the complainant as well as the accused shall be present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
List on 23/06/2022."
28. When the matter was listed on 23/06/2022, both the parties were present before the Court and this Court passed a detailed order as under:
"The complainant and accused are present before the Court.
- 25 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
When the matter was listed on 09.06.2022, this Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, held that, this is a fit case to frame the Charge and issued non bailable warrant to the accused through jurisdictional police and directed the police to ensure the presence of the accused on 16.06.2022. When the matter was listed on 16.06.2022, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is ready to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.94 situated at Kadadanahalli, Malur Taluk, in lieu of maintenance of `22,10,000/- payable by him to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant sought time to secure instructions from the complainant. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned.
Today, learned counsel for the complainant on instructions from the complainant who is present before the Court, submits that the accused is due in a sum of `22,10,000/-, whereas the market value of the aforesaid land is less than `7,00,000/-, and therefore, complainant is not ready to accept the offer. Learned counsel for the accused, on instructions from the accused who is also present before the Court, submits that accused has no other source to pay the maintenance.
In view of the above, when the Court expressed that there is no other option, but to frame the Charge, at that stage, learned counsel for the accused raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Contempt Petition. The said objection cannot be
- 26 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
sustained at this stage, as the Order dated 09.06.2022 passed by this Court has reached finality."
29. On 23.6.2022, this Court framed the charge against the accused and also recorded the plea. The relevant portions of charge and plea reads as under:
"CHARGE That inspite of the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in M.C.No.914/2015 on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, and modified by this Court by the Order dated 18.02.2019 passed in W.P.No.55090/2018, wherein, this Court directed you to pay maintenance to the complainant at the rate of `24,000/- per month, in terms of the Order dated 19.01.2012 passed in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 (Crl.M.C.No.1971/2009) on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, you have not complied with the said Orders. Thereby you have deliberately violated the order passed by the Family Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court."
- 27 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 PLEA Question: Have you heard the charge now read over and explained to you?
Answer : Yes.
Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any
defence to make?
Answer : Yes, I am liable to pay a sum of
`22,10,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs ten
thousand only) to the complainant."
30. As stated supra, in the plea, the accused has admitted his guilt and stated that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.22,10,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, this Court has opined that there is no necessity to record the evidence. However, at the request of learned counsel for the accused, three weeks' time was granted to pay the amount of Rs.22,10,000/- to the complainant and adjourned the matter to 19.7.2022.
31. Again when the matter was posted on 19/07/2022, the following order is passed by this Court:
"Though this Court is inclined to pass the order against the accused, who has utterly failed to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 18.02.2019 made in
- 28 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
W.P. No.55090/2018 directing the him to pay a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month as maintenance and this Court has already taken pains to frame the charge, recorded the plea and provided an opportunity to the accused to pay a sum of Rs.22,10,000/- to the complainant.
Unfortunately, learned counsel for the complainant submits that one more opportunity be given to the accused to pay the maintenance amount to the wife.
On the concession made by learned counsel for the complainant, finally, two weeks time is granted to comply the Order dated 18.02.2019 made in W.P. No.55090/2018.
List this matter after two weeks."
32. When the matter came up before this Court on 11/08/2022, this Court passed the following order:
"This Court on 19.07.2022 passed an order and the relevant portion is as under:
"Though this Court is inclined to pass the order against the accused, who has utterly failed to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 18.02.2019 made in W.P. No.55090/2018 directing him to pay a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month as maintenance and this Court has already taken pains to frame the charge, recorded the plea and provided an
- 29 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
opportunity to the accused to pay a sum of Rs.22,10,000/- to the complainant."
On the said date, at the instance of learned counsel for the complainant, this Court granted two weeks' time to the accused to pay Rs.22,10,000/- to the wife.
Today (11/08/2022), when the case was called out in the morning, neither the learned counsel for the accused nor the accused were present and again when the case is called at 3.43 p.m., learned counsel for the accused, Sri Hanumanthappa B.Haravi Goudar is present, but the accused has blissfully remained absent which clearly indicates that he has no respect for the Court order. Thereby, it is a fit case to summon the accused by issuing a non-bailable warrant through the jurisdictional police and produce him before this court in accordance with law.
In view of the above, we issue non-bailable warrant to the accused through the jurisdictional police to ensure the presence of the accused on 18/08/2022.
Copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned jurisdictional police through the Government Advocate and ensure the compliance of the order by the police."
33. Again on 18/08/2022 a detailed order came to be passed by this Court as under:
"In spite of the order passed by this Court on 11.8.2022, the amount due to the wife in a sum of
- 30 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
Rs.22,10,000/- is not paid. Even today, the accused is not inclined to pay the aforesaid amount.
By order dated 11.8.2022 this Court has also issued non bailable warrant through Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Rural District directing the Police to produce the accused before this Court and a copy of the same was sent to the Learned Government Advocate to ensure that the concerned police shall comply with the order passed by this Court.
Sri Kiran Kumar, learned Government Pleader submits that the order passed by this Court has been communicated to the jurisdictional police on 17.8.2022. However, none appears from the jurisdictional police i.e., Bengaluru Rural Police Station nor complied with the order, but fortunately the accused is voluntarily present before this Court. This clearly indicates that the Police has no respect for the Court's order. Therefore, the concerned Sub Inspector of the Bengaluru Rural Police Station shall be present before this Court on 23.8.2022 to explain as to why action should not be taken against him for non implementation of the order passed by this Court dated 11.8.2022.
A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Government Pleader to ensure the presence of the concerned Sub Inspector of the Bengaluru Rural Police Station before this Court on 23.8.2022.
Post this matter for final hearing on 23.8.2022 as a last chance to the accused to pay the aforesaid amount, failing which we request the learned counsel appearing for
- 31 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
both the parties to proceed with the arguments on the main matter."
34. When this Court framed charge on 23/06/2022 and recorded a plea, the accused has pleaded guilty and admitted that he is liable to pay Rs.22,10,000/- to the complainant/wife, but till today, he has not paid single paise to the claimant. Very curiously, today, when the matter is posted for arguments, undertaking affidavit is filed voluntarily by the accused agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month. Once the accused pleaded guilty before the Court, he is liable to pay the amount due in a some of Rs.22,10,000/-. The very undertaking was the subject of Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 vide order dated 19/01/2012, wherein the Metropolitan Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month. If the accused had really intended to pay the maintenance, he would have atleast shown bona fide paying the amount every month when the matter being posted from the year 2019 i.e., the contempt petition filed on 13/11/2019, he has not shown any inclination to pay the deposit. Therefore, he has dragged the complainant to the contempt Court dragging the matter for more than three years and thereby, he has utterly violated the order dated 19/01/2012, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate
- 32 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 and also the order dated 01/06/2017, passed in M.C. No.914/2015, on I.A.No.3, passed by the Family Court directing the accused to pay Rs.30,000/- per month, which was modified in W.P.No.55090/2018 filed by the accused against M.C.No.914/2015 vide order dated 18/02/2019. Even the modified order and the subsequent order on the application filed for extending time by six weeks from 16/09/2019 were not complied with and the said orders have reached finality, inspite of which the undertaking is filed before this Court today, after framing of charge and that too when the accused has accepted the guilt, is nothing but a tactics. It is also relevant to note at this stage that, the accused though has given many undertakings before this Court to pay the maintenance amount and subsequent on dates the accused conveniently remained absent and hence, this Court was forced to issue bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant and its an unnecessary trouble to the jurisdictional police to ensure the presence of the accused before this Court clearly depicts that he has not only disobeyed the order dated 18/02/2019, passed in W.P.No.55090/2018 and the subsequent orders as well as the undertakings given by the accused before this Court. Though a contention was taken by the learned
- 33 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 counsel for the accused that this Court should not take hard steps against the accused as he is a heart patient and he has to look after his aged parents.
35. It is the duty of the accused to pay maintenance to the complainant being a husband of the complaint/wife as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & others. [AIR 2014 SC 2475] at paragraph No.3 it is held as under:
"3. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the
- 34 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan [AIR 2015 SC 2025] at paragraph Nos.15 to 18, it is held as under:
"15. The High Court, without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.2,000/-. In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000/- per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125, CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands
- 35 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125, CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125, CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125, CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. While determining the quantum of
- 36 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
maintenance, this Court in Jabsir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun & Ors. has held as follows:-
"The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been ruled that:-
"Section 125, CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid
- 37 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat."
This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
17. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash wherein it has been opined thus:-
"An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
18. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces.
- 38 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance."
37. Being the husband of the complainant, it is bounden duty not only to maintain his old age parents, but also to maintain his wife as there is a specific order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate as long back as 19/01/2012 passed in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011 directing the accused to pay maintenance of Rs.24,000/- and the same was enhanced by the IV Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court on 01/06/2017 in M.C.No.914/2015. In Writ Petition No.55090/2018 came to be filed by the accused before the learned single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 18/02/2019, the complainant confined to maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month. The three orders mentioned below have reached finality:
(i) Metropolitan Magistrate on 19/01/2012 passed in Crl.M.C.No.44/2011;
- 39 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019
(ii) IV Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court on 01/06/2017 passed in M.C.No.914/2015 and
(iii) Learned single Judge's order dated 18/02/2019 in W.P.No.55090/2018 Thereby, the accused not only disrespected the order passed by this Court, but abused of process of law from 2011 till 2022 which culminated in filing the present contempt petition. This clearly indicates that the accused has deliberately violated the above mentioned orders passed by three Courts, thereby the accused is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
VIII. Answer to the point framed
38. On meticulous perusal of the entire material on record and for the reasons stated above, we answer the point framed in the affirmative holding that the complainant has made out a case to punish the accused and the charge leveled against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt as the accused himself has accepted the guilt when the charge and plea were recorded by this Court on 23/06/2022, thereby the accused has committed contempt of Court within the meaning
- 40 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 of Section 2(b) of the Act punishable under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
39. It is true that the judges should not be hyper sensitive in discharging judicial functions, but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain angelic silence also. Immaterial it is as to the person but it is the seat of justice which needs protection; it is the image of judicial system which needs protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard.
40. The experience of this Court depicts that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative litigations before various Courts of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such litigations shall be weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice treating the Court as "Temple of Justice" and to protect precious public and judicial
- 41 -
CCC No. 1789 of 2019 time of the court. "This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system".
41. It is high time for the Court to protect not only the majesty of the court, but also ensure judicial discipline of the Court, since it is the repository of public faith and trustee of the people. The circumstances warrant that the Court has to act as 'Societal Parent' to protect Dharma as preached by Bhagvan Sri Krishna, at verse 7-8 of Chapter 4 of the Bhagavadgeetha, which is as under:
"यदा यदा ह धम य ला नभव त भारत ।
अ यु थानमधम य तदा मानं सजा ृ यहम ् ॥४-७॥ प"र#ाणाय साधनां ू &वनाशाय च द)कताम ु ृ ्।
धमसं थापनाथाय स भवा+म यगे ु यगे ु ॥४-८॥"
which means:
Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, and there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I myself come forth;
For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, For the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age.
42. In view of the above, we pass the following:
- 42 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
IX. ORDER/RESULT (i) The contempt petition is allowed. (ii) The accused/husband/J.Keshavamurthy is
hereby convicted for the contempt of Court, punishable under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) or pay the entire maintenance amount of Rs.22,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakh ten thousand only) whichever is earlier, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
(iii) The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to prepare a warrant of commitment and detention in respect of Accused in Form No.3 as contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 and take further action against the accused to undergo punishment imposed.
(iv) The assistance rendered by the learned
Government Advocate, Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Hanumanthappa B.Haravi Goudar, learned
- 43 -CCC No. 1789 of 2019
counsel for the accused to arrive at this conclusion is appreciated and placed on record.
43. At this stage, Sri Hanumantha B.Haravi Goudar, learned counsel for the accused makes an oral submission that the sentence be suspended for a period of six weeks as the accused intends to prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
44. The said submission is placed on record.
45. Since the accused intends to prefer an appeal, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we hereby suspend the sentence imposed in the present contempt petition, for a period of six weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Page Nos. 1 to 14 ..... gss 14 to end ....S*