Pani Ki Tanki, Aamrapli Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur(Rajasthan) v. Deepak Sharma Son Of

: Mr. Amin Ali Mr. Tayyab Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Mewara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 16/05/2025

1. Alleging non compliance of interim order dated

11.10.2018 passed by this court, the Petitioner has filed this contempt Petition with a prayer to punish the Respondents for committing contempt of Court.

2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned Family Court no. 1, Jaipur passed judgment and decree dated

17.03.2018, whereby while granting decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent, marriage of Petitioner-wife and Respondent- husband solemnized on 27.11.2004 has been dissolved. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree dated [2025:RJ-JP:20803-DB] (2 of 6) [CCP-29/2022]

17.03.2018, the Petitioner filed D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 1880/2018 before this court on 05.04.2018 within the limitation prescribed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Learned Counsel has further indicated that this Court admitted the above Appeal no. 1880/2018 vide order dated

02.05.2018 and called for the record of Family Court. However, the Petitioner received one letter dated 31.08.2018 from the Employer of the Respondent-Husband, mentioning therein that her husband had informed the Employer regarding dissolution of their marriage vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 and accordingly, the Petitioner was asked to confirm the same. In response to above letter, the Petitioner submitted her reply on

22.09.2018 mentioning therein that since the petitioner has already filed appeal no. 1880/2018 before this Court within limitation, hence in view of Section 15 of the Act of 1955, the Decree dated 17.03.2018 stood automatically in abeyance and was not in operation.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact that thereafter the Petitioner filed one Second Stay Application in Appeal no. 1880/2018, on which this Court issued notice on 11.10.2018 and also passed an ex-parte interim order to stay operation of judgment dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Family Court, Jaipur.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that Notices of the Appeal and Stay Application were received by the Respondent on 17.11.2018 and thereafter, on 04.01.2019 in presence of Counsel for the Respondent, while referring the dispute between the parties to be resolved through mediation, [2025:RJ-JP:20803-DB] (3 of 6) [CCP-29/2022] the ex-parte interim order passed on 11.10.2018 was confirmed by this Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further informed the court that thereafter one application for vacation of above stay order was received by the Counsel for the petitioner through Email dated 20.04.2021, whereby the above stay order dated

11.10.2018 further confirmed on 17.11.2018 was prayed to be vacated. In above Stay Vacation Application, it was mentioned by the Respondent that after the aforesaid decree of divorce dated 17.03.2018 and much before issuance of notice on Second Stay application and grant of Stay order dated

11.10.2018, he had already performed Second marriage. Therefore, Stay order dated 11.10.2018, further confirmed on

04.01.2019, was of no consequence and effect; except causing hindrance in his way for getting the name of her second wife recorded in the records of his Employer.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that only on receiving copy of stay vacation application, the Petitioner could learn about Second marriage performed by the Respondent. Learned Counsel vehemently submits that that such act of conducting Second Marriage by the Respondent is in utter disregard of this court’s interim order dated 11.10.2018 further confirmed on 04.01.2019 and amounts to contempt of court, for which the Respondent is liable to be punished. Hence, on 17.11.2021, the Petitioner filed the instant Contempt Petition.

8. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Respondent has not flouted any order of this [2025:RJ-JP:20803-DB] (4 of 6) [CCP-29/2022] court, hence, no case even of non-compliance, much less than contempt of court, is made out against the Respondent. Learned Counsel pointed out that the allegations levelled by the Petitioner in the contempt petition are totally vague and superficial, hence, he prayed for dismissing the contempt Petition at the outset.

9. We have carefully heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and also examined the record.

10. On perusal of the memo of Contempt Petition, we find that the Petitioner has nowhere mentioned the date on which interim order dated 11.10.2018 was served upon the Respondent by the Petitioner. The Contempt Petition is also silent over the specific date on which the Second Marriage was said to have been performed by the Respondent.

11. This is also a matter of record that on 08.04.2022, in the instant contempt Petition, this court passed the following order:- “Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to file additional affidavit of the Petitioner with regard to the date of marriage. List on 06.05.2022.”

12. As per office report, no such affidavit as required by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 has been filed by the Petitioner. Even today during the course of arguments, specific query was put to the Petitioner for disclosing the date of second marriage performed by the Respondent, but learned Counsel for the petitioner has shown his inability to disclose any such date. [2025:RJ-JP:20803-DB] (5 of 6) [CCP-29/2022]

13. It would be relevant to refer definition of civil contempt prescribed in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is as under:- “S.2(b)- “Civil Contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”

14. Thus, it is clear that for constituting contempt of court, essentially indispensable and necessary ingredients are as under:- "(i) There exists an Order, Judgment or direction passed/issued by the court. (ii) Such direction, order or judgment of the court has been disobeyed. (iii) Such disobedience must be willful."

15. At the first place, needless to mention that question of disobedience can take place, only if the person accused of disobedience has knowledge about the order alleged to have been disobeyed. But in the instant matter, the Petitioner has utterly failed to point out even the date on which interim order dated 11.10.2018 was served upon the Respondent. So undisputedly on the point of acquiring of knowledge of stay order by the Respondent, memo of contempt petition is absolutely vague.

16. Secondly, the Petitioner is also unable to inform the court about date of second marriage said to have been performed by the Respondent. Since, as per the petitioner herself, the alleged contemptuous act on the part of the Respondent is the act of performing second marriage in defiance of stay order of this court, hence, until and unless it is [2025:RJ-JP:20803-DB] (6 of 6) [CCP-29/2022] made clear as to whether such second marriage has taken place after the interim order or not, no disobedience of the stay order can be alleged by the Petitioner.

17. In absence of above two significant dates in the instant matter, no opinion regarding any disobedience whatsoever, much less than any willful or deliberate disobedience, can be formed by this court.

18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapildeo Prasad San and Ors. vs State of Bihar and others, reported in 1999(7) SCC 569 has observed that power to punish for contempt is having far reaching consequences and therefore, it should be resorted to only where a clear case of willful disobedience of the court’s order is made out. Petitioner who complains of breach of Court’s order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court’s order. After meticulous examination of the contempt petition and in the light of above judgment, we are satisfied that no case of contempt is made out against the Respondent.

19. Hence, the instant Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed. Contempt notices stand discharged. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J pcg /35