JAMNA DATWANI Vs. KISHIN DATWANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against her son, respondent No. 1, Kishin Datwani. In addition to respondent No. 1, there are 11 more parties impleaded as respondents though they are termed as proforma respondents.

(2.) I have heard Ms. Tara V. Ganju, the learned counsel for the petitioner on the contempt petition. The present petitioner is the mother of four siblings; three sons, Janak, Kishin and Anand and a daughter, namely, Nitya. All these parties are litigating before the judge on the original side with regard to certain properties. The learned single judge had passed an order on 16.12.2013 making certain interim arrangements which were to be complied with till the next date of hearing. Twelve directions are purported to have been given by the learned single judge on the original side out of which, direction Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned with sharing of the property situated in Friends Colony, West. The subsequent directions pertained to providing financial succour to the present petitioner. For this purpose, certain directions were given to all the respondents to pay certain monies to the petitioner in order to provide financial succour. These directions were challenged by way of two appeals.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid three directions passed by the court have not been fully complied with by respondent No. 1 inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 35,000/ -, which was payable from the month of May, 2014, has not been paid. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - which was to be paid towards the purchase of a car, has also not been paid. So far as payment of Rs. 5 lacs was concerned, only a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/ - has been paid.