S SURYAPRAKASH RAO Vs. P O FAMILY COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Advocates. The 1st petitioner appeared for the 2nd respondent i.e., the petitioner in O.P.No.104 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad preferred against the 3rd respondent i.e., the respondent therein (wife of the petitioner in the O.P.) for divorce; and the 2nd petitioner appeared for the respondent in the O.P. They questioned the validity and propriety of notice in Dis. No.229/97, dated 26-7-1997, issued by the 1st espondent herein i.e., the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Secunderabad, directing them "to appear before the Court (Family Court, Secunderabad) on 4-8-97 at 10-30 a.m. without fail to show cause why Contempt of Court proceedings should not be initiated in view of the contents in joint memo dated 3-7-97".

(2.) The joint memo referred to in the impugned notice was filed by the petitioner and respondent in the said O.P.No.104 of 1996. The contents of that memo speak by themselves and they are as follows: "It is submitted that the above Divorce petition was coming up for Trial. Witnesses on behalf of petitioner were examined and it was posted for evidence of Respondent. The respondent was partly examined on 12-5-1997. At that stage the Presiding Officer of this Hon'ble Court suggested compromise and asked Advocates on both sides to persuade the parties. Both parties agreed to compromise and petitioner intended to withdraw the O.P. The Presiding Officer was on leave on 19-6-1997, and it was posted on 3-7-1997. The parties requested the Presiding Officer to take up the case after lunch as both Advocates would come after lunch. It was also requested to the Hon'ble Court that the Advocates would report compromise. In spite of this representation this Hon'ble Court posted the case for Orders on 10-7-1997. Both the Advocates requested the Presiding Officer to meet in Chambers so that O.P. can be disposed of on the basis of compromise. However the presiding Officer refused to meet the Advocates, who are senior Advocates. The staff told the Advocates that if the parties want, they have to file reopening petition. She also seemed to have commented that let the Advocates represent before the Bench. But the Presiding Officer, did not sit on the bench after lunch on 3-7-97. Hence under the circumstances the parties are filing joint memo informing this Hon'ble Court their intention to resume cohabitation with effect from 3-7-1997. Both parties pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to close the O.P.No.104 of 1996, by recording compromise. The parties also pray to dispense with the presence of Advocates, on 10-7-1997 as they declined to appear for discourtesy shown by Presiding Officer to them." The facts narrated in the joint memo are affirmed in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition by the first petitioner herein. He further states that on 3-7-1997 they all waited in the Family Court to make a mention after lunch, in view of the observation the Presiding Officer seems to have made that, if the advocates wanted to make representation, they should do so in the Court; but that the Presiding Officer did not sit after lunch on that day and remained in her chambers. The 1st petitioner states that it was under those circumstances the joint memo was filed. He further states that the O.P. was dismissed on 26-7-1997. The petitioners contend that the impugned notice is without any jurisdiction or authority and that the joint memo did not give rise to any contempt. They also contend that the Family Court has no inherent power to initiate contempt proceedings, except in case of civil contempt, and that the facts of the case did not give rise to any civil contempt as there was no order of the Court which was violated by the petitioners.

(3.) The writ petition was presented on 31-7-1997 and when it came up on 18-8-1997, notice before admission returnable in two weeks was ordered and the 1st respondent was directed to send a report on the matter by 1-9-1997 and, pending further consideration of the matter by this Court, she was directed not to proceed further on the impugned notice dated 26-7-1997 and not to require the petitioners herein to appear pursuant to the notice.