Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 3]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Sharma vs Smt. Manisha Sharma on 28 October, 2015

                             WP-18060-2015
                   (SANDEEP SHARMA Vs SMT. MANISHA SHARMA)


28-10-2015

Shri Rahul Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed
against the order dated 3.9.2015 passed in MJC.No.13/2015 whereby,
the Trial Court while entertaining an application under Order 7 Rule 11
read with Section 151 of of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has
dismissed an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking initiation of action against
respondent on the ground that, despite of receiving maintenance under

the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 the respondent maliciously filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on 16.1.2014 claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- for her daughter Rishika.

The tenability of said proceedings was questioned by respondent by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC on the anvil that there was no willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order,writ or other process of the Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

The Trial Court finding substance in the objection raised on behalf of respondent dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner vide impugned order, which when tested on the anvil of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act 1971 and more particularly the provisions under Section 2(b) which stipulates that : a “Civil Contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court that application filed by the petitioner was not tenable cannot be faulted with. Since impugned order does not suffers any jurisdictional error, no interference is caused.

Consequently petition fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE