VIJAY KUMAR PURI Vs. USHA MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition Shri Vijay Kumar Puri, the petitioner herein, has challenged the legality of the order passed on May 5, 1980, by M.ss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby a fine of Rs. 500 was imposed on the petitioner for committing contempt of Court. In default of payment of fine, it was directed that he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days.

(2.) A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking a decree for divorce has been field against the petitioner which he is contesting. He has not engaged a counsel and is appearing in person. The facts leading to the impugned order are that in reply to the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of his wife, seeking maintenance, the petitioner averred : "The Honable Court should not be a party to the litigation and the Court should pronounce the order in accordance with the law set out in the Civil Procedure Code ." Mr. S.R. Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in whose Court the matrimonial case was pending, considered this averment as casting aspersion on the Court and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The reply to the show cause notice came up for consideration before Miss Usha Mehra. Additional District Judge, Delhi, successor of Mr. S. R. Goel. By the impugned order it has held that the language, used by the respondent is derogatory and amounts to contempt of Court on the finding that the reply of the petitioner to the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also his reply to the show cause notice, clearly established that the petitioner herein had lowered the dignity of the Court and had cast aspersion on it. The learned Additional District Judge has thus punished the petitioner by imposing a fine of Rs. 500.

(3.) The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the said order as being without jurisdiction. On July 30, 1980. when it came up for admission I directed issuance of the notice to the Standing Counsel for the Delhi Administration. My first impression was that a revision petition challenging the impugned order was not maintainable. As the question raised was important and the petitioner had not engaged a counsel, I appointed Mr. D. R. Sethi as Amicus Curiae.