CACP No. 2 of 2003 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CACP No. 2 of 2003 Date of decision :December 8, 2009 * * * * * Malook Singh ............appellant Versus Kulwinder Kaur ...........respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. K.S Dhaliwal, Advocate for the contemner. Mr. B.S Guliani, Advocate for the respondent. * * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. Present appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short `the Act') arises out of an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on February 28, 2003 sentencing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The parties are husband and wife married on 8.4.1992. CACP No. 2 of 2003 :2: A female child was born out of the wedlock. The appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 17.9.1998 but this Court set aside the said judgment on 11.10.2001. Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by Division bench on 31.3.2002. An order was passed during the pendency of the first appeal before this Court on 15.9.1999 restraining the appellant from remarrying till further orders. But still the appellant solemnized marriage with one Surjit Kaur on 6.6.2000. He also applied to military authorities for incorporating the name of Surjit Kaur as his nominee in place of respondent herein. The appellant admitted the solemnization of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C as well. The respondent-wife, in these circumstances, filed a petition for punishing the appellant for violation of the orders passed by this Court. It is the said petition which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on February 28, 2008 with the finding that the appellant has violated the order passed by this Court. The issue whether the performance of marriage after filing of an appeal, without an interim order, is civil contempt, came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in COCP No. 1180 of 2005. This Court has held that performance of marriage even when limitation of filing an appeal has not come to an end, amounts to interference in process of the Court and is a civil contempt. However, in the present case, appellant has remarried after about 9 months of the interim order restraining him from CACP No. 2 of 2003 :3: performing second marriage was granted by this Court. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is guilty of willful disobedience of an order passed by this Court and therefore rightly convicted for a civil contempt. Under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, fine of Rs.2000/- alone can be imposed but, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of three months from today in lieu of punishment of imprisonment. Such compensation is being awarded in terms of Article 215 o the Constitution of India to settle the equities and to provide some solace to the respondent. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent within a period of three months over and above the amount of maintenance. If the appellant fails to deposit the compensation as stipulated above, he shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the learned Single Judge. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE December 8, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE