CC/1668/2013 of S.Z.Ahmed, Vs Smt.Sameera Fatima on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

This Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of CourtsAct (“the Act”, for short) is filed by the petitioner/husband against therespondent/wife requesting to punish her for the alleged acts of contempt ofCourt, namely, wilful/deliberate disobedience and breach of the orders of thisCourt dated 04.01.2013 in C.R.P.No.3767 of 2012.

2. (a) The facts of the case, which are necessary for consideration, inbrief, are as follows:

There are matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife. Thewife filed O.P.No.324 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judge, AdditionalFamily Court, Hyderabad, for divorce on the alleged ground of cruelty. Thehusband filed O.P.No.1391 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judge, FamilyCourt, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for custody of children, on the allegedground of desertion by wife along with children. The husband originally filedI.A.No.405 of 2012 and I.A.No.780 of 2011 in O.P.No.1391 of 2011. Thesaid applications were rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court. Beforerejecting the request of the husband, the learned Judge, Family Court,examined both the children of the parties in the chambers and it appears thatthe children expressed their unwillingness to go to the father as the fatherharassed them and their mother. The request for interim custody of thechildren was hence rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court, inter aliaobserving that the welfare of the children and their interests are paramount. Having filed C.R.P.Nos.3767 and 4068 of 2012 against the orders dated10.07.2012 of the learned Judge, Family Court, in both the above saidinterlocutory applications, the husband inter alia contended that the children are obviously under the influence of the mother and that the dismissal of hisapplications solely on the basis of the statements of the children aged 6 yearsand 4 ½ years without taking into consideration the other circumstances isnot proper. This Court, by common orders dated 04.01.2013, disposed of theC.R.Ps filed by the husband and the operative portion of the said common orders reads as under:- “Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of setting asidethe orders passed by the Court below. The petitioner is given rights tovisit his children on every first and third Saturdays from 10.00 AM to 1.00PM in the presence of the Court staff to be engaged by the PresidingOfficer of the Court below subject to the observations made above. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.”

Now, the instant contempt case is filed by the husband to severely punish thewife for wilfully/deliberately disobeying and breaching the above said ordersof this Court on 03.08.2013, i.e., the 1[st] Saturday of the month of August,2013 and to impose a heavy penalty by sending her to civil prison for a termof six months and pass such other orders as this Court deems fit.’

2. (b) Now, the relevant pleading of the petitioner is as follows: ‘Therespondent is flagrantly and continuously violating the orders of this Courtand the violation complained is a 10[th] violation in all, and that the orders areviolated continuously for six times without any cogent reasons. The simplereason for violation and absenting from appearance before the Court isfasting during Ramzan which is a degrading excuse. The wife’s intentionand sole evil motto is to harass the husband and cause mental agony to themaximum extent. The petitioner/husband attended Court to visit the childrenon 03.08.2013 (1[st] Saturday), but the respondent/wife did not turn up on thatday and no reasonable cause was assigned for her absence. The sameshows that she has scant respect for law and the orders of this Court. Thesame also shows her stubborn, non cooperative, aggressive and non-conducive attitude towards the husband. The children are victims of herpsychic ire and defiant attitude towards the husband and everybody including

the elders advised her to settle the scores and join the society of thehusband. She is intending to defeat the orders of this Court to satisfy heregoistic nature. Her outlawed behaviour shows her sick mentality, sadismand scant respect towards courts of law and criminal bent of mind. Thepetitioner informed his wife by Telegrams at the inception itself and filed acopy of the Telegram with a Memo dated 02.02.2013 in the Court below. Thepetitioner had also filed a memo dated 15.06.2013 complaining that therespondent is committing contempt of court. The petitioner also informed therespondent to produce the children on any other day of the choice of therespondent to compensate the earlier actions and non-compliance of theorders of this Court. She is continuing to break the law by her raw attitude ofstubbornness. She has in her mind an idea to separate the children from thefather even by violating and showing disrespect to the orders of this Court. Her conduct is highly objectionable and reprehensible. She is not wilfullyand wantonly implementing the orders of this Court and her acts amount tocontempt of court.’

2. (c). The respondent/wife filed a counter affidavit denying theaverments pleaded by the petitioner in the petition and inter alia contendedas follows:- ‘The respondent is having utmost respect and regard for thisCourt. She never disobeyed the orders of this Court intentionally. Evenotherwise, she tenders unconditional apology for unintentional mistakes, ifany. During the occasions when the children were having examinations andon certain occasions when the respondent was ill and during Ramzan period,because of fasting the respondent could not bring the children to the Court. She had got filed memos through the counsel appraising the court below ofher difficulties. The petitioner is taking undue advantage. The reasons arewell explained for the absence. However, the petitioner filed the petition toharass this respondent.’

3. I have heard the submissions of the petitioner, the party-in-person andalso the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. I havecarefully perused the material record including the pleadings, additionalaffidavit, written arguments and additional written arguments filed by thepetitioner and also the orders of this Court, pursuant to which this presentContempt Case is filed.

4. I have given detailed, thoughtful and earnest consideration to thepleadings of both sides filed before this Court and also the writtensubmissions and additional written submissions of the petitioner. Be it notedthat the pleadings are reiterated in the written submissions and in thepleadings and in the written submissions, the importance of Ramzan and theavowed objective with which Ramzan will be observed and religioussentiments associated with observation of Ramzan are stated. A decision in Food Corporation of India V/s. Sukh Deo Prasad[[1]] was also relied uponby the petitioner/husband. In the said decision, the facts show thatdisobedience of injunction orders was the subject matter and that the powersof the Court under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure which areprimitive in nature and the duties which the Court has to exercise and thecaution and the responsibility of the Court are enunciated.

5. Coming to the core issue, the act complained of as a violation of theorders of this Court was a single instance as per the relief claimed in thecontempt case. The said instance is the wilful/deliberate disobedience orbreach said to have been committed on 03.08.2013 of the orders of this Courtdated 04.01.2013 in C.R.P.No.3767 of 2012. This Court is therefore, requiredto examine the said instance only and not any other instances inter aliaalleged in the submissions of the petitioner/husband. This incident of thealleged violation on 03.08.2013 was during month of Ramzan is not indispute. Even according to the averments in the contempt case, the reason

for not complying with the orders of this Court is that the respondent/wife wason fasting on account of Ramzan. In fact, the petitioner/husband alleged inpara (5) of the affidavit as under:

“The simple reason for absenting is she is fasting. Ramzan is forall including me and Ramzan never stops anything. This is themost degrading excuse of her to violate orders of highestinstitution in A.P i.e., Hon’ble High Court”.

(Reproduced Verbatim)

The respondent/wife in her counter affidavit had stated that she had neverdisobeyed the orders of this Court intentionally and had also tendered anunconditional apology for her unintentional mistakes, if any. Thus, a motherof two young children aged about 6 and 4 ½ years would submit that onaccount of fasting during the month of Ramzan, she could not comply with theorders of this Court on 03.08.2013; and she had further tendered anunconditional apology in her pleading. Considering the serious disputesbetween the husband and the wife and taking into consideration theallegations and counter allegations made in the pleadings and thesubmissions, this Court is of the well considered view that it is a fit case toaccept the reason as assigned by the wife as a satisfactory explanation fornon-compliance of the orders of this Court on 03.08.2013 and it is alsoexpedient to accept the apology offered in her pleadings, as such a coursesub-serves the ends of justice. No case is made out, in the well consideredview of this Court, to send the wife, a mother of two young children, to a (civil)prison. The fact remains that interim maintenance was admittedly awarded toher and the children by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Further, no case ismade out even to consider this case as a fit case to impose fine/penalty.Since the present case is decided purely on facts there is no need tospecifically refer to any case law. Be that as it may, the ratio in the rulingrelied upon by the petitioner and the submissions in the written memorandaof the petitioner/ husband are not helpful to him, in the facts peculiar to this case. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the present contempt case is devoidof merit and is liable to be dismissed. To give a quietus to the dispute at theearliest, suffice, if a direction is given to the learned Judge, Family court todispose of the main proceeding/Original Petition as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

6. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

_____________________

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

30[th] DECEMBER 2013RARRAR

[1]AIR 2009 SC 2330