Aastha Thakur
Published on: 26 August 2022 at 18:43 IST
The Gujarat High Court recently held that the Court must confine itself in contempt jurisdiction to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. It has no power to go beyond the order alleged to have been flouted.
The Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri ruled that in order to determine whether an act is obstinate, the courts have to apply their prudent and ‘mechanical’ mind. It should determine whether “positive” steps were taken to show intentional disobedience of a judicial order.
The court stated that, “…..while dealing with the contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated.”
“The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts have arisen and the documents produced are true and genuine, being in the realm of adjudication, ought to have been taken up for adjudication. “
The petition filed deals with Article 215 seeking the trial of the respondent for the ‘wilful breach’ of the order of January 2021 passed for the stay of divorce proceedings initiated at the UK Family Court. The order of stay was passed by the Division Bench of the UK, which could be extended over time.
Additionally, the petitioner stated that the order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which had not disturbed the order of stay. Still, the UK Court passed a preliminary decree in this matter.
The matter was filed by the petitioner that the respondent had wilfully not informed the UK Court regarding the order of stay by the Gujarat HC. This amounts to contempt given under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The respondent submitted that the order of stay passed by the Gujarat HC was not against the respondent but against the UK Court. The respondent submits that he did notify the order of the HC to the counsels in the UK but the UK still passed the decree.
The bench, perusing the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was indeed a citizen of the UK and the Family Court had granted relief in the form of a divorce. The bench asserted that no directions were issued by the High Court to the respondent to do any particular act. There is no positive impact of continuing the interim orders passed by the Court.
Accordingly, it was observed:
“From the E-mail correspondence placed before the Court, it appears that this stay order had been communicated to the Court at Willesden, United Kingd om by the petitioner, but it appears that the Court at United Kingdom did not wait and proceedings have been taken forward which culminated in passing of a decree.”
It was observed by the Court that the Respondent was keen to get order from the UK Family Court, however the Respondent did not take any positive steps to press the matter before the Family Court. The Court here relied on Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex-Chief Executive Officer & Ors., v. Assam Roller Flour Mills:
“When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature.”
The Bench failed to find anything concrete to arraign the respondent and to show how many positive steps were required to hear the proceedings before the Family Court.
Then the Petitioner was at liberty to initiate proceedings in a substantive appeal which was pending for adjudication.