Uttarakhand High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 16 December, 2019
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision (CRLR No. 93 of 2019)
Rahul Kumar ...Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Present: Mr. Mahboob Rahi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Verma,
Advocate for the revisionist
Mr. P.S. Bohra, AGA for the State
Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the respondent
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The revision in question is arising out of an order dated 9th February 2018, as passed by the Family Court, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 201 of 2016, Deepa Ojha v. Rahul Kumar, wherein, in a proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, the learned Family Court, Khatima has awarded an interim maintenance payable @ Rs. 5000/- per month, which has been directed to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent-wife by 10th of each month. This matter, after the issuance of notice on the Delay Condonation Application was taken up and the delay was condoned on 24th June 2019.
2. The revision was taken up before the Lok Adalat on 13th July 2019 and the revisionist had expressed his willingness to discharge the matrimonial obligations, and the parties were agreed that all the proceedings interse between them both on civil and criminal in nature would be withdrawn. As a consequence of the said settlement, the compromise which was arrived at between the parties, which was duly signed by both the parties and the parties were identified by their respective counsels. As a consequence of the settlement, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13th July 2019, had dismissed the revision as withdrawn.
"Mr. Rahul Kumar will company Mrs. Deepa his wife today to Kahtima and from there both will go to Haridwar. All the pending cases civil or criminal will be withdrawn. In all cases in various courts will be withdrawn by the parties. O.S. 92 of 2016 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending in Haridwar will be withdrawn.2
Mr. Rahul Kumar has committed in Lok Adalat that he will be nominate his wife Deepa Ojha in his service book, policies, accounts etc. and provide her status of wife. This settlement is read to the parties and they have signed with their free will there is no under pressure.
There will be always opportunities to both the parties to avail legal right in violation of the terms.
Mediation successful."
3. It is hereinafter that in the consistent proceedings held on different dates thereafter, the conduct of the revisionist has been dubious and with deliberate intent to flout the orders as passed by this Court, he had been adopting all measures of non-compliance of the orders of this Court and to defeat the object of the orders passed by this Court. He was directed to be produced through SHO by an order dated 18th November 2019, because a statement was made by the counsel for the respondent-wife that the direction issued on 13th July 2019, was not complied with. The revisionist was taken in custody by the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, and later on, he was produced before this Court on 20th November 2019.
"A statement has been made by the counsel for the respondents that despite of the compromise having been entered into before the Lok Adalat, the same has not been complied with by the revisionist. The respondent no.2-wife, who is present in the Court and the counsel for the revisionist has expressed his inability for the revisionist to appear before this Court on account of the fact that he is presently employed in Vidhik Vat Map Vigyan Rishikul, Vidhyapeeth, Haridwar.
The Station House Officer, Police Station Ranipur is directed to produce the revisionist in custody before this Court on 20.11.2019."
4. Despite the assurances extended by the revisionist for furnishing of Bond of Rs. 50000/-, he had not complied with and for various reasons assigned in the Application, which has been filed by him before this Court, since the said direction was not complied with, he was directed to be taken into custody for a period of one week. It was on account of an undertaking given by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist will be furnishing the Bond of Rs. 50000/-, and will ensure the compliance of the direction issued on 13th July 2019, the custody was suspended for the time being. But still the revisionist could not budge to the orders passed by this Court, and there had been a deliberate non compliance and 3 ultimately on 5th December 2019, he was directed to be taken in custody due to non compliance of the orders and made deliberate attempts so that the matter may not be proceeded with to be adjudicated on merits.
"Such type of litigants, who plays with the orders of the Court or who attempts to deceit and deceive the very purpose of the compromise, which he has voluntarily entered into resulting into a consequence revival of the matrimony between him and respondent no.2, any such ground pleaded by him for noncompliance of the order dated 13.07.2019 would be apparently for the purposes to defeat the order dated 13.07.2019.
Having considered the mode in which the revisionist has played fraud with the matter for non compliance of the order dated 13.07.2019, he is directed to be kept in custody for a period of one week from today.
Put up this revision on 05.12.2019.
For the time being the presence of the S.H.O., Ranipur is suspended until and unless needed in future.
After the order having been passed for taking the revisionist in custody for non compliance of the order dated 13.07.20219, the revisionist through his Advocate had made a statement that he will furnish a bond in favour of her wife to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and he would also ensure the compliance of the order on 13.07. 2019 as passed in the mediation proceedings before the Lok Adalat and would comply the same and report back by the next date fixed i.e. 05.12.2019.
In view of the above condition his custody is suspended for the time being."
5. The matter was thereafter fixed on 9th December 2019, but the revisionist yet again did not appear before this Court. Consequently, the matter was directed to be posted on 16th December 2019, with a direction that suo moto cognizance for drawing a contempt proceeding would be taken against the revisionist.
"The Court is of the confirmed view that the said engagement could not have been a reason for non appearance before the Court despite of the directions issued by the Court. Consequently, this Court directed the S.H.O. Ranipur to arrest the revisionist and to produce him before the Court. The said order was directed to be made effective through the C.J.M., Haridwar. In pursuance to the order, a compliance report was submitted by the C.J.M., Haridwar that the revisionist has been taken into custody and would be produced on the date fixed i.e. 20.11.2019.
On 20.11.2019, the revisionist was directed to furnish a bond in favour of the wife to the tune of Rs.50,000/-and he was directed to "ensure the compliance of the order dated 13.07.2019 as passed in the mediation proceedings before the Lok Adalat and report back to this Court by the next date fixed i.e. 05.12.2019."
On 05.12.2019 the revisionist has adopted a very noble way to avoid an adjudication of the revision on merits by engaging another counsel and the counsel, for the revisionist in itself is not 4 in a position to argue the matter, wanted to engage another counsel.
Looking to the past conduct of the revisionist, this Court was constrained to take a suo moto cognizance for drawing contempt proceedings and the revisionist was directed to be taken in the custody by the S.H.O., High Court. He remained in custody till evening. Later on, he was released to comply with the condition of the remittance of the bond and to put in appearance on 09.12.2019 before this Court i.e. today itself.
List has been revised even in the revised call the revisionist is not present. In that view of the matter, while exercising powers under Section 11 to be read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, notices are issued to the revisionist to appear in person on 16.12.2019. The C.J.M., Haridwar is directed to ensure service of notice of today's order and also directed to ensure his appearance in custody before this Court on the next date fixed.
List this Revision on 16.12.2019."
6. Today, when the matter revived in pursuance to the order dated 9th December 2019, the revisionist has filed a supplementary affidavit, and in the supplementary affidavit, he has made an averment that in compliance of the directions issued on 13th July 2019, he had furnished a draft by way of a Bond of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent-wife. Simultaneously, he has made a reference that he has drawn a proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. This Bond, which has been submitted by him on 20th November 2019, at a much belated stage, cannot be said to be a compliance of the directions issued by the orders passed by this Court on 13th July 2019. Even drawing of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the revisionist happens to be to defeat the mediation settlement arrived at between the parties on 13th July 2019. This filing of Section 9 application on 02.09.2018, that after compromise before Lok Adalat is malicious and clever device to avoid stern order.
7. Since this Court has already taken a suo moto cognizance of contempt as against the revisionist for drawing the proceedings for non compliance of the directions issued to him by the orders passed by this Court, he is hereby noticed to submit his reply as to why he should not be punished for:-
5(i) Deliberately flouting the orders of this Court, which was passed even in his presence in the consistent proceedings of the revision held before this Court.
(ii) The Joint Controller, Weight and Measurement Department, Haridwar is directed to make the deduction of Rs. 5000/- per month from the salary of the revisionist at source and to ensure remit the same directly to the account of respondent-wife.
(iii) The Registrar (Judicial) High Court is directed to register an FIR against the revisionist for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court flouting the orders, and playing foul with the Court by making an undertaking and not complying the same.
(iv) The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to register the FIR forthwith. The revisionist is directed to be taken in custody and to be sent in jail.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 16.12.2019 Mahinder/