Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kamla Devi @ Babita Raikwar vs Shri Ramesh Kumar Raikwar Judgement ... on 11 December, 2013
1 Con.C No 1749 / 2013.
Con. C. No. 1749 / 2013.
11/12/2013.
Shri P.K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Tulika Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.
Inter alia contending that certain interim order passed on 29.6.2011 in F.A. No.49/2001, have not been complied with, this application has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, seeking action against the respondent.
First appeal in question was pending with regard to matrimonial dispute between the parties and it is said that inspite of restraint order passed by this Court in first appeal, the respondent has contracted the marriage and therefore, contempt action be taken. If such a course is adopted by the respondent in contravention to the statutory requirement, the consequence as are contemplated in the Statute under the Hindu Marriage Act shall follow. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Food Industry (I) Ltd. & Another vs. Sachidanand Dass & Another, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 465 that if the provision under the law is available for execution of breach of an order, contempt action should not be initiated.
In the present case, the respondents has contracted marriage in the breach of the statute or interim order passed by this court which is nothing but a mandate for compliance with the requirement to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no case for initiating action under Article 215 of the Constitution 1 2 Con.C No 1749 / 2013.
of India is made out. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy as may be available under the statute, in case the respondent has committed any breach.
With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, for the present, finding no action for initiating contempt, this application is disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma)
Judge Judge
Parouha/-
2