SARLADEVI BHARATKUMAR RUNGTA Vs. BHARATKUMAR SHIVPRASAD RUNGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Masodkar, J. by his order dated 27th of January, 1986 in this contempt petition order issuance of notice to respondent No. 1 as to why he should not be proceeded with for contempt of Court and be not dealt with as such for not obeying the directions of the Court in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 by order dated 20th of December, 1984.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to those proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act are that respondent No. 1 Bharatkumar Shivprasad Rungta was married to the petitioner Sarladevi Rungta according to Hindu rites. Respondent No. 1 filed Marriage Petition No. 10 of 1977 in the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay against the petitioner wife for a decree of nullity of marriage and in the alternative prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on various grounds. The petition was resisted by the wife. During the pendency of the proceedings on the application of the wife interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month was fixed. As per the order dated 19th of July, 1982 the marriage petition was allowed and a decree for divorce was passed. By the same decree the husband was ordered to pay to the wife permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. Feeling aggrieved by the decree of divorce, the wife preferred First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal Masodkar, J. , passed an order dated 20th of December, 1984 whereby respondent No. 1-husband was directed to pay alimony at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month during the pendency of the appeal. He was also directed to clear the arrears within 4 months. It was further directed that with regard to the financial position of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 should file a specific affidavit which would be considered for the purpose of considering the quantum of maintenance. The petitioner wife was also given opportunity to file similar affidavit. As respondent No. 1-husband did not pay the maintenance amount inspite of the decree in the earlier orders to pay the amount, the decree of divorce under appeal was directed to be suspended. It was made clear that the quantum of maintenance fixed under the decree was kept-operative. The appeal was directed to come up for hearing after the maintenance was so paid. Respondent No. 1-husband did not pay any amount towards the maintenance and did not comply with the order of this Court dated 20th of December, 1984. Therefore, the wife filed Contempt Petition No. 10 of 1986 and in that petition Masodkar, J. passed an order for issuing notice to respondent No. 1-husband in the following terms :---

(3.) Respondent No. 1-husband in reply to the notice filed his affidavit dated 24th of November, 1986. In his reply he states that due to unavoidable circumstances he has not been able to pay the alimony amount as directed by the Court. According to him, it is not his wilful act but due to circumstances beyond his control and he has no intention to show any disrespect to the orders of this Court. The assessment orders for the year 1985-86 and the statement for the year 1986-87 submitted by respondent No. 1 show that he is not in a position to pay the amount. In the notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, produced by respondent No. 1 shows that his income was assessed at Rs. 8,560/-. The statement showing the computation of income filed along with the notice of demand shows that he had received some income from Rungta Industries on account of interest on capital and also on account of share of profit. It also shows that during that year Respondent No. 1 sold 1800 silver coins at the rate of Rs. 16.20 per coin for a total amount of Rs. 29,160.00. The total taxable income is shown at Rs. 8534.83 and the taxable capital gain is shown at Rs. 7, 864/-. Respondent No. 1 had also produced a copy of his affidavit filed by him in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 dated 27th of February, 1985. The petitioner-wife has produced a copy of her affidavit dated 14th of August, 1985 filed in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983.