1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2006 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2006 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 616 OF 2004 Medha Vinayak Angal ) Formerly Mrs. Medha Ashok ) Panchabhai Age 40, Occ.Domestic ) work, R/at 11, Sai Prasad ) Apartment, Gangapur Road, Nasik.)..Petitioner Versus 1. Ashok Atmaram Panchabhai ) Age 45, Occ. Service, ) 502, Kailash Apartment,3rd ) floor, Kalyan Ishwarwadi, ) Ghanshyam Nagar, Bhuj, ) (Kachh), Gujrat. ) 2. Sanghi Industrial Ltd. ) Bhuj, (Katch), Gujrat, ) Pin Code 370 001. ) 3. State of Maharashtra. )..Respondents Mr. M.D.Angal, Advocate a/ Mrs. Rukmini, Thokal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.V.More, AGP, for the State. 2 CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 19th March,2008. DATE: 19th March,2008. DATE: 19th March,2008. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Angal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.1 nor the respondent No.1 himself is present in Court. 2. To state in brief, the petitioner and respondent No.1 were married on 7.2.1988 and after the marriage, they lived together till March 1996. The respondent No.1 - contemnor is a qualified Engineer and was in service at different places. According to the petitioner,during the entire period of cohabitation, the respondent-husband had physically and mentally tortured her. On 18.6.1997, the petitioner filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.118 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik for dissolution of the marriage as well as for maintenance for herself and for her daughter Aditi. The trial court passed the judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 and passed a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance for the petitioner herself and her daughter for a period of 10 years. Being not satisfied with the order in respect of maintenance, the petitioner filed Civil 3 Appeal No.42 of 2002. That Appeal was partly allowed and the District Court directed the respondent to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- towards the maintenance for the petitioner for a period of 10 years. That amount was not to include the maintenance which could be claimed by the daughter. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.616 of 2004 which was heard and disposed of on 22.9.2005. In the Second Appeal, this Court had directed the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing the petition for divorce. He was also directed to pay arrears of permanent alimony within six months in equal instalments and to continue to pay the maintenance amount monthly and regularly. The payment was to be made on or before 10th day of each calendar month. This Court also directed him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. 3. Inspite of the order passed by this Court, the respondent did not make any payment and, according to the petitioner, inspite of having sufficient sources, he had intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. With this contention, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition on 3.3.2006. It may be noted that on 25.4.2006, the respondent appeared and filed an affidavit opposing the Contempt Petition. According to him, he was jobless, had no permanent source of income or permanent employment and he did not 4 have sufficient means of income and therefore he could not comply with the order of the Court. He denied that he had intentionally or wilfully disobeyed the order. However, after hearing the parties, this Court (A.M.Khanwilkar, J.) rejected the contention of the respondent-husbannd that he was unable to make payment. This Court also noted the undertaking given by the respondent before this Court that he would first pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from that date and thereafter he would clear the arrears of maintenance as well as costs of rs.5,000/- in instalments of Rs.20,000/- per month beginning from 1.7.2006 In view of the undertaking, the matter was directed to be placed before the Court on 3.7.2006 under the caption of direction and the matter was to be treated as part-heard. However, on the next date, i.e. 3.7.2006, the respondent did not appear. Therefore, the bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.15,000/- was issued against him, but the bailable warrant could not be executed. Thereafter, non-bailable warrant was issued against the respondent no.1, but that warrant also could not be executed as he could not be traced out. 4. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner took out Civil Application No.91 of 2007 seeking attachment and sale of the flat of the respondent NO.1 situated at Panchvati, Nashik. By order dated 5.9.2007, the said flat was directed to be attached and as per the 5 writ certified by the District Judge, Nashik, the said property belonging to to the respondent No.1 was attached and is under attachment at present. 5. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted above, it becomes clear that the respondent No.1, who is an Engineer and was well placed in service with different companies from time to time, has not made payment of maintenance and the costs of litigation as directed by this Court in the Second Appeal. Inspite of giving undertaking before this Court to make payment, he has not made any payment and thereafter he is not traceable. Even the non-bailable warrant issued by this Court could not be executed Taking into consideration these circumstances, it maybe held that the respondent No.1 has wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the order of this Court in respect of payment of maintenance and costs. Therefore, it is necessary to take action against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that in view of the above record, it is impossible for him to take any further steps to secure presence of the respondent no.1 to undergo any sentence. He makes a statement that the petitioner will be satisfied if the property of the respondent no.1, which is presently under attachment as per order of this Court, is put to sale and the arrears of maintenance and 6 costs are recovered from the sale proceeds of that property. From the record, it is clear that even though the property was attached on 16.11.2007, the respondent No.1 has not appeared and has not made any payment. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to put the said property to sale and to appropriate the sale proceeds of that property towards payment of arrears of maintenance and costs to the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the District Judge, Nashik, is hereby directed to put the property of the respondent No.1 i.e. flat no.7 Radha palace, "B" Wing, second floor, Plot No.18/19, on Survey No.87/2, Makhmalabar, Panchvati, Nashik, which is presently under attachment, to put to sale by auction and the sale proceeds be appropriated after recovery of the cost of sale, towards payment of arrears of maintenance and costs as granted by this Court in Second Appeal No.616 of 2004. The respondent No.1 shall also pay costs of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of present litigation and that amount shall also be recovered from the sale proceeds of the aforesaid property. 8. There is no need to take any action against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present Petition. Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7 9. Writ of this order be given to the petitioner. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)