Pooja Kumar v. Mohit Kumar

1. Respondent is present in Court today, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 01.11.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Respondent has failed to make payment of maintenance in terms of the order dated 04.12.2021, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court – 2 (South District), Saket Court, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’). He states that there are arrears of Rs. 4,85,000/due and payable by the Respondent and the last payment was received by the Petitioner on 06.09.2022 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. He further states that there has been change in circumstances during the pendency of the present petition. The Petitioner along with her children resides in a tenanted premises, which have been leased by the Respondent. A decree for possession has been passed by the Civil Court in favour of the Landlord, on the basis of statement made by the Respondent herein recording his willingness to surrender the possession of the premises. Therefore, in these circumstances on one hand the Petitioner is likely to be evicted from the tenanted premises along with her children and on the other hand the Respondent has wilfully stopped making payments towards maintenance. The Trial Court had taken into account the rent for the tenanted premises while fixing the maintenance amount. He states that the Respondent’s wilful continuous non-compliance of the order in not making payment of maintenance and simultaneously consenting to a decree of eviction evidence that the Petitioner is facing a dire situation.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent on instructions of the Respondent states that the Respondent is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance fixed by the Trial Court, due to loss of income as the business activity undertaken by him has shut down.

5. I have considered the submissions of the parties. The order passed by the Trial Court fixing the maintenance is operating. A bald statement has been made that the Respondent does not have funds to make the said payment. The Respondent has neither filed its reply to the present petition nor has brought any material on record to substantiate his claim of loss of income. This submission by itself is not an answer to the directions of the Court which are binding on the Respondent.

6. This Court on earlier 05.01.2022, had recorded that the Petitioner’s minor son was then studying in 12th Standard and his board examinations were expected to ensue shortly. The Petitioner on the said date had submitted that an amount of Rs. 1.[5] Lacs was then outstanding towards school fees. This Court on the said date had directed the Respondent to file its ‘reply’ and further deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

7. Subsequently, the when the matter was listed on 01.11.2022, this Court had recorded the continuing non-compliance of the Respondent, in as much as the arrears have increased to Rs. 4,85,000/-. The Respondent has elected to neither file a reply to this petition nor comply with the order of the Trial Court.

8. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is evident that the Respondent is defiant and in wilful violation of the Trial Court’s order dated 04.12.2021.

9. It is a matter of record that although an appeal against the order of the Trial Court is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, New Delhi (‘Appellate Court’), however, the said order has not been modified by the Appellate Court and that there is not stay on the operation of the said order.

10. It is a settled law that mere filing of an appeal is no ground for noncompliance of Court’s directions and is liable for contempt. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Mrs. Surina Rajan, Administrator, HUDA & Anr., 1993 SCC OnLine P&H 134, has held as under:

11. The orders in the present proceedings evidence that this Court has given multiple opportunities to the Respondent to comply with the order. Further, even on the last date of hearing i.e. on, 01.11.2022, learned Counsel for Respondent had sought time to obtain instructions. However, despite multiple opportunities, the Respondent has not been able to satisfy this Court, with any justifiable reason for the admitted non-compliance with order of the Trial Court.

12. In these circumstances this Court of the opinion that Respondent is defiant and has wilfully disobeyed the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Trial Court and the Respondent has therefore is held guilty of contempt and is liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971.