Deepak v. Meenu @ Parveen

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:26.07.2016 Mr. Deepak

...Petitioner

Versus

Mrs. Meenu @ Parveen

...Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Ms. Payel Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for the respondent.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This petition is filed under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), for initiating action against the respondent for disobeying the undertaking/statement recorded before the District Judge, Chandigarh, in H.M.A. Petition No.271 of 2013, filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1955), titled as "Meenu vs. Deepak", decided on 20.12.2013.

At the outset, counsel for the respondent has raised an objection about maintainability of the present petition on the ground that it is not maintainable being barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Act. According to the respondent, the cause of action arose to the petitioner for

[ 2 ] filing the present contempt petition on 20.12.2013, whereas the present petition has been filed on 27.03.2015, therefore, it is barred by limitation as the limitation to file the contempt petition is only of one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Secondly, he has submitted that the contempt would lie if there is a willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent does not have the money at present to pay to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent's application for grant of maintenance is pending before the competent Court, which is likely to be decided on 06.08.2016 and in case some maintenance is awarded to the respondent, then the amount of `1.5 lacs may be adjusted in the arrears of maintenance.

It is further submitted by the respondent that even in the FIR proceedings, the respondent has not admitted to pay the amount in lump sum immediately but in the due course. On the contrary, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had initially filed the contempt petition before the District Judge, Chandigarh, which was dismissed being not maintainable over there and then the present contempt petition was filed, therefore, it is well within the period of limitation. It is also submitted that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondent because the money was taken by the respondent at the time of first motion but the same has not been returned when the second motion was filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance.

There is no doubt that the respondent had taken the money

[ 3 ] from the petitioner at the time of first motion when the petition under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 was filed. However, on the adjourned date, much before the second motion, the respondent resiled from her consent for divorce by mutual consent and ultimately on 20.12.2013, the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 was dismissed for want of consent of the respondent. The amount of `1.5 lacs was paid by the petitioner to the respondent but it is contended on her behalf that at present, she does not have the money to pay to the petitioner which may be adjusted in case any order is passed on her petition filed for maintenance, which is likely to be decided on 06.08.2016. Thus, there is no element of willful disobedience on the part of the respondent and insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the petitioner has not made any reference in this petition for condonation of delay for maintaining the present petition and merely filing of contempt petition before the District Judge would not stop the period of limitation to run.

In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

July 26, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge