KULDEEP KAUR Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH ALIAS DAKSHJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner got married with the respondent at Ludhiana on 21.11.1999 as per Sikh Rites. They are blessed with two children, namely, Harmeet Singh, born on 22.10.2000 and Harleen Kaur, born on 25.05.2006. The respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was dismissed on 03.11.2010. The respondent also filed appeal before this Court bearing FAO No.14 -M of 2011, which is admitted. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses which was disposed of on 22.11.2011, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 15,000/ - per month as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application i.e. 07.03.2011 and Rs. 20,000/ - towards litigation expenses. It was further ordered that the arrears of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses would be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. Since the order passed by this Court was not complied with by the respondent within the stipulated time, the present petition is filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for initiating proceedings against the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 22.11.2011.

(2.) THE contempt notice was issued to the respondent on 25.10.2013, directing him to appear before this Court on 05.12.2013 at 12 O'clock to show cause as to why he should not be penalised for violating the direction of this Court. On the next date of hearing, this Court recorded the order that "notice issued to the respondent has not been received back. Let respondent be served through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ -.

(3.) THE warrant will be executed by the police of Ludhiana with the assistance of Andheri Police, West Mumbai for 11.02.2014". The bailable warrants were received unserved with the report that the respondent has furnished a false address and has never resided there. Thereafter, the following order was passed by this Court on 11.02.2014: -