PUNEET PARKASH Vs. JAI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for partition filed by the petitioner, being CS(OS) No. 189/2009, the parties arrived at a family settlement through Mediation Cell and the family settlement was duly signed by the parties. The parties made an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC to the Court for passing decree in terms of the family settlement. The Court vide order dated 17th April, 2009 decreed the suit in terms of the family settlement. There was one sentence in the final order that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. The petitioner claims, that this amounted to an undertaking given to the Court and therefore he had a right to move the Contempt Petition against the respondents for non-compliance of the family settlement and i.e. non-payment of the maintenance to the petitioner (son) by the respondents (parents).

(2.) I consider that the Contempt Petition was not maintainable. Provisions of Contempt of Court cannot be used as an alternative to the execution. Since the terms of decree, had been clearly settled and the suit of the petitioner was decreed by consent of the parties, if any part of the terms of settlement are not being complied with, the petitioner is at liberty to execute the decree by way of filing an Execution Petition. The Supreme Court in R.N.Dey & Ors. v. Bhagyabati Pramanik & Ors. (2000) 4 SSC 400 observed that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused and normally it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which an alternative remedy in law is provided for. The discretion given to the Court (of Contempt) is to be used for maintenance of Court's dignity and majesty of law. An aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemnor and the Court. Similarly in Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad (2009) 5 SSC 665 the Supreme Court observed that the contempt jurisdiction, either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, is not intended to be used for enforcement of money decrees or directions/orders for payment of money. The process and concept of execution is different from the process and concept of action for disobedience/contempt.

(3.) The petitioner relied on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 1883 wherein Supreme Court observed that merely because an order or decree is executable, would not take away the Court's jurisdiction to deal with a matter under the Act provided the Court is satisfied that the violation of the order or decree is such, that if proved, it would warrant punishment under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the contemnor, substantially interfered or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.