E-Paper
Man jailed, fined ₹2,000 for disobeying court orders in matrimonial dispute
A bench of justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said that the man has concealed his true income and expenditure, and said that his actions or omissions in choosing to show complete disregard to its orders, if permitted, would “lead to anarchy”
Taking exception to an attempt “to act over smart”, the Delhi high court on Thursday sentenced a man to simple imprisonment for three months and also fined him of ₹2,000 for disobeying repeated directions of the court in a matrimonial dispute.
A bench of justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said that the man has concealed his true income and expenditure, and said that his actions or omissions in choosing to show complete disregard to its orders, if permitted, would “lead to anarchy”.
The order was passed on a contempt petition filed by the man’s wife in connection with an order in September directing him to pay maintenance and also disclose his income.
The family court had earlier directed that the wife be granted a monthly maintenance of ₹35,000 and ordered clearance of arrears through instalments in six months. The high court had directed the man to comply with the interim maintenance order passed by the family court.
In its latest order, the court said that the rule of law would become a casualty and orders of the court would be taken lightly and breached at will by individuals. “We have considered the aspect that mere imposition of a fine of ₹2,000 would not meet the ends of justice, and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary considering the fact that the arrears owed by him are far in excess of the fine imposed, and the fact that he has deliberately, wilfully, intentionally and defiantly disobeyed the directions issued to him by the family court and by this court despite grant of opportunities,” the court directed.
It, however, said that it would consider recalling the punishment provided that the man complies with the aforesaid direction within a period of two weeks and exhibits his apology by complying with the orders.
In its order, the court noted that the man had suppressed his true income only with a view to evade orders passed by the family court and the high court requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife.
“The situation is that the respondent has stubbornly and obstinately refused to comply with the said orders on completely false premise of his financial inability. Despite our repeated orders, he has failed to make a clean breast of all his accounts, incomes and expenditures,” the court said.
It said that the man has shown no remorse or regret for non-compliance of the orders.
“If there is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree direction, order writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of undertaking given to the court, the contempt court shall take note of such violation, that needs to be punished. The willful disobedience by the contemnor undermines the dignity and authority of the Courts and outrages the majesty of law.”
The court said that the judiciary as an institution has garnered faith of the common masses as a trusted institution only because judicial orders are enforced, in an appropriate case, even at the pain of contempt. The faith posed by the people in the judiciary has to be protected in the interest of society, and also to meet the ends of justice.
