1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.352 OF 2010 Mrs. Kavita P. Shah ...Petitioner. v/s. Mr. Paresh L. Shah ...Respondent. Mr. Firdaus Musa i/by Prakash L. Mahadik ,advs. For the Petitioner. Mr. Harshad Bhadbade i/by M/s Joy Legal Consul. ,adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Petitioner/wife filed this contempt petition on 9th July, 2010 contending that the order passed by this court on 26th April, 2010 in writ petition no.2111 of 2010 was not complied as the amount of maintenance with arrears was not paid as per the directions given by the Court. 3 Record reveals that by an order dated 11.2.2010, Family Court had directed the husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,44,750/- to the wife and Rs.50,000/- per month for two children effective from 24.3.2009. That order was challenged by the respondent/husband in writ petition no.2111 of 2010. Petition was finally disposed off on 26th April, 2010. By that order, this Court modified the order of the Family Court and directed the husband to pay maintenance 2 to the wife at the rate of Rs.1 lac per month and at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each to both the children. This Court also noted that due to lapse of time , arrears of the maintenance had mounted and, therefore, petitioner was directed to pay the said arrears of maintenance within a period of six months failing which his defence shall stand struck off. Thus, as per the said order dated 26th April, 2010, respondent was given six months time to clear the arrears. Therefore, arrears of maintenance could be cleared upto 26th October, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the order passed by the High Court on 26.4.2010 was challenged by the respondent/husband by filing SLP. That petition was dismissed on 8.10.2010 and he was given further 60 days time to clear the arrears. Contempt petition as noted above, was filed on 9.7.2010, i.e., long before the period granted for clearance of maintenance was over and, therefore, it is clear that on or before the day, on which the contempt petition was filed, respondent had not committed anything which would amount to contempt of the Court. In view of this, itself contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 As per the statement of payment made by the respondent marked ‘X’ filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner today, it appears that by December, 2010, respondent had already paid an amount 3 of Rs.16,50,000/- and in January, 2011, he further paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, arrears as per the order dated 26th April, 2010 were cleared and an amount of Rs.2 lac over and above arrears upto the date of the order of the High Court was also paid. Besides that, from March, 2011 to July, 2011, respondent has paid further amount of Rs.10,50,000/- Thus, amount till January, 2011 has also been paid. It is possible that there may be some arrears from February, 2011 onwards but as the contempt petition could not be filed in respect of the contempt, which is likely to be committed in future. Contempt petition may be considered in respect of contempt already committed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is continuing contempt and, therefore, action should be taken against the respondent for the contempt of the Court. I am unable to accept this contention. Action for the contempt could be taken for the contempt, which is already committed. If there is any breach of the order after filing of the contempt petition, petitioner may take separate and independent action, which may be considered on its own merits. 5 In view of the facts noted above, firstly, when the contempt petition was filed, no contempt was committed and secondly, all the arrears as per the High Court Order are already cleared within the time. 4 6 In view of all these circumstances, I find that contempt of the Court is not committed. 7 In the result, contempt petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)