RAJESH SURANA Vs. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/petitioner/husband has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 08.12.2008 in I.A.No.3452 of 2008 in F.C.O.P.No.697 of 2003 passed by the Principal Family Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by him under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying to stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.697 of 2003, tried along with O.P.No.1601 of 2003 and M.C.No.116 of 2005 unless the respondent/wife purges out of the contempt.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.3452 of 2008, has inter alia opined that 'the Honourable High Court has passed orders in C.R.P.(PD).No.1867 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 wherein a direction has been issued to the trial Court to dispose of all the three cases within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order etc. and therefore, has not accepted the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings should not be proceeded with unless the respondent/wife purges out of the contempt and resultantly, dismissed the application.'

(3.) HE also relies on the decision in Prestige Lights Limited V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 at page 459 whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 24 and 25 the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:".24. An order passed by a competent court - interim or final - has to be obeyed without any reservation. If such order is disobeyed or not complied with, the court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merits. We are not unmindful of the situation that refusal to hear a party to the proceeding on merits is a -drastic step- and such a serious penalty should not be imposed on him except in grave and extraordinary situations, but sometimes such an action is needed in the larger interest of justice when a party obtaining interim relief intentionally and deliberately flouts such order by not abiding by the terms and conditions on which a relief is granted by the court in his favour.25. In the leading case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson the custody of a child was given to the mother by an interim order of the Court, but she was directed not to remove the child out of jurisdiction of the Court without the prior permission of the Court. In spite of the order, the mother removed the child to Australia without prior permission of the Court. On a summons by father, the Court directed the mother to return the child within the jurisdiction of the Court. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed by the mother against that order. A preliminary objection was raised by the father that as the appellant was in contempt, she was not entitled to be heard on merits. Upholding the contention and speaking for the majority, Romer, L.J. observed: (All ER p.572 C)-- I am clearly of the opinion that the mother was not entitled, in view of her continuing contempt of court, to prosecute the present appeal and that she will not be entitled to be heard in support of it until she has taken the first and essential step towards purging her contempt of returning the child within the jurisdiction.-In a concurring judgment, Denning, L.J. also stated: (All ER p.575 C-D)-The present case is a good example of a case where the disobedience of the party impedes the course of justice. So long as this boy remains in Australia, it is impossible for this Court to enforce its orders in respect of him. No good reason is shown why he should not be returned to this country so as to be within the jurisdiction of this Court. HE should be returned before counsel is heard on the merits of this case, so that, whatever order is made, this Court will be able to enforce it. I am prepared to accept the view that in the first instance the mother acted in ignorance of the order, but nevertheless, once she came to know of it, she ought to have put the matter right by bringing the boy back. Until the boy is returned, we must decline to hear her appeal.- (emphasis supplied)