NARINDER KAUR Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition had been filed by the wife against the respondent husband for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Court to pay maintenance as ordered by the Court. A notice in the present petition was issued on 26-5-1983. As it was found that the respondent-husband vas avoiding service, a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 2,000 was issued for securing his presence. The respondent-husband had been cleverly avoiding service with the result that the warrant could not be executed for more than one year. It was then reported by the petitioner, that respondent-husband was appearing in another suit between the parties in the trial court pending before Shri S.S. Handa, Sub-Judge, Delhi. With this information non-bailable warrants were issued by this Court with the notice to the Commissioner of Police and to the Standing Counsel for Delhi Administration. The petitioner-wife being frustrated in the process was trying to find out as to where the husband was residing as the police reported that he was not traced out at the original address viz. 71/71, Prem Nagar. New Delhi. The non-bailable warrants still could not be executed. The respondent-husband is working in Northern Railways and an effort to serve the warrants on his official address, therefore, was made. On 2-3-1983 I directed the General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi to withhold the salary of the respondent. This-was done merely to procure the attendance of the respondent-husband before the Court. On the next dare of hearing, counsel for the General Manager, Northern Railways, informed the Court that the respondent-husband had been absenting from duties for more than three years and departmental proceedings were being held against him. The non-bailable warrants were thus remained unexecuted. On 10-10-1983 the petitioner informed the Court that against the order of the trial court in the suit the respondent-husband had filed a Civil Revision (C.R. 228/83) in this Court and one Shri Jaspal Singh, Advocate was appearing for him. A notice was issued to Shri Jaspal Singh, Advocate. This was done with a view to find out where the respondent-husband was residing for the execution of warrants against him. Shri Jaspal Singh, Advocate appeared before me and he informed that the respondent-husband was out of job and was ill. The Advocate was directed to make an effort to produce the respondent-husband before the Court on the next date of hearing. As the dispute was initially a matrimonial dispute, I also explored the possibility of a compromise. On 27-4-1984 for the first time the contemner appeared in person.

(2.) The parties were married in 1950 and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. According to the wife the respondent-husband is wayward type and would always like to avoid family responsibilities. A petition for judicial separations, therefore, was filed in March, 1977 on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the husband. An application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for pendente-lite maintenance was also filed. The trial court passed an order for payment of Rs. 250 as pendente-lite maintenance, for the petitioner and her younger daughter apart from the litigation expenses. The respondent-husband filed an appeal against the said order of interim maintenance which was dismissed by the Court. The respondent-husband thereafter started absenting himself in the trial court to have the judicial separation proceedings pending. Finally a decree for judicial separation was passed on 30-9-1977. The respondent-husband did not pay the maintenance and was in arrears. An execution application for recovery of maintenance amount was granted by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 19-12-1980 and the respondent-husband's employer was directed to make the payment from the salary.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the first appeal in this Court (F.A.O. No. 377/80) against the order of the trial court dismissing the application in default filed under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act for permanent maintenance. In this appeal the petitioner moved an application for maintenance under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 17-11-80, Leila Seth, J. passed an order for pendente-lite maintenance @Rs. 250 per month from the date of application i.e. 18-7-1980. Litigation expenses of Rs. 500 were also granted. On various dates thereafter the respondent-husband absented and did not make the payment of maintenance as directed by this Court. He was represented by Shri K.S. Bindra, Advocate. He appeared before the Court and sought the permission of the Court to withdraw from the proceedings. He was directed to file a written application. No such application was filed. On 17-5-1981 i. e the next date of hearing, the petitioner found that the respondent-husband was moving in the Court (lobby) on the ground floor but neither he nor his Advocate was present in the Court when the matter was called out. In these circumstances, the present petition under the Contempt of Courts Act was moved.