AMITA B DEVNANI Vs. BHAGWAN H DEVNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This contempt petition is filed by the wife complaining of wilful disobedience of the order passed by the family Court II Mumbai dated 30. l0. 200l in Interim application nos. 26 of l999 and 27 of l999 in petition A No. 494 of l999. The direction as was passed under the said order reads thus:"order both the interim application are partly allowed. The non applicant/original petitioner, bhagwan is directed to pay maintenance @ rs. 20,000/- p. m to the applicant/original respondent Amita for herself and for her two minor children from November 2000 onwards. He is also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the applicant, Amita at rs. l0,000/- the claim towards her charges per hearing is hereby rejected. The arrears of maintenance and cost of litigation be paid by the non applicant, bhagwan to the applicant, Amita within a period of 60 days from today. He shall also continue to pay the maintenance which would become due before l0th of each month as per the English calendar"

(2.) The aforesaid order was not complied till the institution of the present contempt petition on l4.5.2003. The record indicates that inspite of notice of this petition, even till the hearing of this petition today, the order has not been complied with. No attempt has been made by the respondent no. l, to atleast partly honour the obligation arising under the said order. In this background, the question that arises before me is whether it is a case of wilful disobedience or breach of order passed by the family court amounting to civil contempt.

(3.) In this petition the respondent nos. 2 to 6 have been impleaded on the assertion that they are responsible for aiding and abetting the respondent no. l for non compliance of the order of the court referred to above. Even if the case as made out in the petition against the respondent nos. 2 to 6 were to be accepted, in my opinion, that will give rise to an action for criminal contempt qua them which is not the scope of the proceedings before me being of civil contempt. The limited question therefore which I am inclined to consider is whether the respondent no. l has wilfully breached and disobeyed the order dated 30. l0. 200l which amounts to having committed civil contempt.