IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL & THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CCC No.1497/2016 (CIVIL) BETWEEN SMT.INDUMATHI H.S., W/O A. JAGADISH KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS, R/A. FLAT NO.II-468/5, CHIKKAPUTTUR, BALIYOOR RAILWAY STATION PUTTUR D.K. 574201. ... COMPLAINANT (By Smt. INDUMATHI H.S., PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND A. JAGADISH KUMAR S/O ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO AGED 61 YEARS, SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER NO. 178, KERTHANA NILAYA 5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, KENGERI UPANAGARA BANGALORE 560 060. ... ACCUSED (By Sri PRASANNA V.R., ADV.) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO: 1) INITIATE THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18/12/2015 IN W.P.NO.9799/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND THE ACCUSED MAY BE DIRECTED TO PAY THE TRIAL COURT BALANCE AMOUNT OF Rs.8,02,600/- WITH 20% INTEREST FOR THE TOTAL BALANCE AMOUNT OF Rs.8,02,600/- BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ONLY AT THE EARLIEST; 2) ACCUSED BE PUNISHED FOR IMPRISONMENT FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD AS PER LAW FOR NON COMPLIANCE; AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. This contempt petition is filed alleging violation of order dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.9799/2015 and interim order dated 21.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.6714/2015.
2. In W.P.No.9799/2015, this Court has issued a direction to Mr.A.Jagadish Kumar – accused herein, who is the husband of the complainant, to pay 50% of `2,80,000/- to the complainant. As regards balance amount payable in terms of the order passed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it has been observed by this Court that the Court below while calculating the alimony or maintenance to be paid by the accused to the complainant, shall keep in mind the direction issued by this Court for payment of 50% and thereafter, calculate maintenance or alimony that might be payable to the complainant vide the final order to be passed.
3. In W.P.No.6714/2015, vide interim order dated 21.08.2015, this Court, after noticing the submission made by the complainant – party-in-person that maintenance amount as ordered by the Court below was not being paid regularly to her, has recorded the submission made by the accused that a sum of `10,000/- per month was being paid every month to the complainant before the Court below. Learned Single Judge has further clarified that the accused shall continue to pay the sum of `10,000/- per month as ordered in M.C.No.99/2007 regularly on or before 5th of every succeeding month and in case of default even for a month, writ petition shall stand dismissed for default without any need to consider the case on merits.
4. The grievance now made by the complainant is that neither the amount as directed vide order dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.9799/2015 nor the amount of `10,000/- per month as per the interim order dated 21.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.6714/2015 have been paid and therefore, it tantamounts to violating the orders passed by this Court entailing action for Contempt of Court.
5. We have heard the party-in-person at length.
6. Accused has asserted in the statement of objections that he had deposited a sum `1,64,700/- on five different dates. However, the complainant disputed this aspect and asserted that no such amount was deposited. In that regard, we issued a direction to the registry to secure information from the Court below regarding deposit made in M.C.No.212/2012. It is useful to extract the order passed by us on 10.10.2017. It reads as under:
“Complainant submits that although respondent has asserted in the statement of objections that he has deposited a sum of Rs.1,64,700/- on five different dates as stated in paragraph 4 of the statement of objections, no such amount reflecting the deposit of Rs.1,64,700/-
has been indeed made, therefore, she has not been able to withdraw the said amount. This assertion made by the complainant is disputed by the accused.
Counsel for the accused submits that accused stands by his statement made in para No.4 of the statement of objections.
In this view of the matter, it emerges that if a sum of Rs.1,64,700/- has been indeed deposited by the accused as stated in para No.4, nothing survives in this contempt petition.
However, if the said amount is not deposited, the accused has to be proceeded against. If the assertion made by the complainant is not correct, then, we may have to take serious view of the matter against the complainant.
Hence, we direct the Registry to secure information from the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, with regard to deposit of amount made in M.C.No.212/2012 on or before 23-10-2017.
Re-list this matter on 24-10-2017.”
7. The registry has received the communication dated 23.10.2017 from the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. The details furnished disclose that total amount of `2,27,700/- has been deposited by the accused in M.C.No.212/2012. A sum of `1,64,700/- has been indeed deposited by the accused as stated by him in paragraph 4 of the statement of objections. This is reflected from the entries found at Sl.Nos.5 to 9 of the information regarding deposits of amount made before the Court of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Puttur, furnished to the registry. It is thus clear that complainant was not right and justified in making an assertion that the said amount had not been deposited by the accused.
8. In view of the above, we are of the view that as the complainant has not come up with true facts and has asserted that no amount was indeed deposited, without making due verification from the Court below, we need not have to proceed further in this contempt proceeding. It is also necessary to notice here that if the complainant has grievance regarding non-compliance of the direction issued by the Court below regarding monthly maintenance payable or with regard to any other dues which she is entitled to recover, she has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Court below. Hence, this contempt proceeding is dropped reserving liberty to the complainant to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Court below for recovery of dues, if any payable to her.
9. During the course of this contempt proceeding, this Court had found that comprehensive rules regarding conduct of proceedings by party-in-person before this Court were required to be framed. In that connection, Registry was directed to examine the existing Rules framed by this Court in contradistinction to the Rules which have been already framed and amended by various High Courts, so as to prepare standard draft rules in order to consider the matter for amendment of Rules. It was also made clear by this Court in this proceeding on 21.07.2017 that after the draft was prepared, the subject for amendment shall be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on administrative side for further consideration by the competent authority. We are appraised that such an exercise has been indeed done and the draft rules have been placed for consideration by Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary action. Hence, no further order in this connection is necessary except to state that a copy of the proceedings/order sheet of this case shall also be placed for perusal of the concerned Committee which is seized of the matter.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PKS