Chanchal Jain vs Arpit Jain on 23 February, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chanchal Jain vs Arpit Jain on 23 February, 2022

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                             1
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                                       BEFORE
                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                               ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                 CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 412 of 2022

         Between:-
         CHANCHAL JAIN D/O RAMESH CHANDRA JAIN,
         AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O 57 SWASTIK NAGAR,
         INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI VIKRANT KATODA, ADVOCATE)

         AND

         ARPIT JAIN S/O VINOD JAIN, AGED ABOUT 34
         YE A R S , R/O 42 SHYAM NAGAR NX MR 10
         SUKHLIYA INDORE AND 941 SOUTH AVE APT B11
         SECANE PA 19018 (OTHER COUNTRY i.e.
         PENNSYLVANIA USA)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT


      Th is petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                               ORDER

This petition under Section 12, 14, 15 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed alleging violation of order dated 16.09.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.2194 of 2021.

02. The aforesaid Criminal Revision was allowed by order dated 16.09.2021 with the following directions:

08. In the result the impugned order allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent upon proceedings ex-parte against the petitioner cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for deciding the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. Since both the parties are represented in this revision they are directed to appear before the Family Court, Indore on 08.10.2021. The petition is accordingly allowed but without any order as to cost.

03. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the order dated 16.09.2021, the respondent was directed to appear before the Family Court on 08.10.2021 but he is not appearing before the Court below.

04. It is seen that upon the revision being allowed the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh. The date given in the order was only a date of appearance and if the present respondent did not appear on that day or has not been appearing even subsequent thereto, then appropriate orders in that regard can be passed by the Court below itself. Only for the reason of the respondent not appearing before the trial Court on the date fixed, it cannot be said that he has violated the order in any manner.

05. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that material facts were suppressed by the respondent in the Criminal Revision and false statements were made therein for obtaining a favourable order in his favour. Various instances have been quoted in the petition to highlight the fact that respondent is living in America unlawfully despite restraining order against him. It is also submitted that before the Court below as well as before this Court, the real facts of the case mere deliberately conceal by the respondent to misguide the Court. It is hence submitted that for making false statements in the criminal revision, the respondent be suitably punished.

06. It is seen that the criminal revision was allowed on the ground that there has been gross illegality in the matter of service of summons upon the respondent. The revision was not allowed upon the factual grounds as had been taken by the respondent in the criminal revision. Though various contentions were raised by the respondent in criminal revision, but no factual findings thereupon were given.

07. So far as the contention of the petitioner that false facts were stated and material was suppressed by respondent in the revision is concerned, then the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be else where and not by way of this petition. The allegations based upon facts as have been levelled by the petitioner in the present petition also cannot furnish a ground to him for initiation of proceedings against the respondent. On mere allegation of order having been obtained by concealment of facts, contempt jurisdiction cannot be resorted to unless there is a finding of a Competent Court in that regard. Thus, finding no ground to initiate any proceeding against the respondent, the instant petition stands dismissed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.02 15:12:03 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court