1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.35/2000 IN L.P.A. NO.193/1999 arising out of W.P. No.2304/1999 Smt. Daksha Mukesh Chandan ...Versus... The State of Maharashtra and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Petitioner in person] [A.G.P. for respondent No.1] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 24.06.2008 Heard petitioner in person. She makes a statement that respondent No.2, who was her husband and who had filed proceedings in the Family Court against her has expired on 1.5.2003. She also states that the matrimonial proceedings between her and respondent No.2 her husband have thus by now ended and no litigation remains pending in the Family Court. This contempt petition was filed prior to death of 2 respondent No.2 in this Court. According to her, contempt of this Court is committed by the Presiding Officer Smt. Bhavna Thakkar of Family Court, Nagpur in collusion with her husband respondent No.2 by altering Roznana and striking the stages of hearing of application, which was filed for custody of child, and also by recording evidence of respondent No.2 by preponing the date to 15.1.2000 in her absence in violation of this Court's order dated 4.1.2000, whereby stay of the Family Court proceedings was granted. Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner, in my opinion, the present contempt petition does not deserve to be proceeded further in view of the events narrated by her before me. According to me, it is no use digging out the past. It is the duty of this Court to see that members of subordinate judiciary discharge their functions in peace. I do not think there is a point in going ahead with this contempt petition at such late stage and particularly because main proceedings in the Family Court having been rendered infructuous due to death of respondent No.2. There is no material placed on record in relation to the alleged alteration of Roznama or preponing of date for recording evidence of respondent No.2. Assuming the same is 3 there, still for the above reasons, I do not think it proper to entertain the present contempt petition at such belated stage. In view of this, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Contempt Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw