Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ. stated that the husband-respondent (‘the contemnor’) was fully aware of the binding nature of the orders passed by this Court, and his obligation to pay maintenance to his wife-petitioner and his two daughters, as directed by this Court, in its order dated 10-4-2019. The Court opined that the present case was certainly not a case of a bonafide litigant and a reasonable, fair, and natural concern to maintain the petitioner and his own daughters was wholly lacking and deliberately neglected by the contemnor. The Court held that the contemnor was guilty of willful disobedience of the order dated 10-4-2019 and thus sentenced him to be detained in Civil prison for a period of six months.
Background
The parties got married in 2002 and since 2009, there were marital disputes between them. In 2009 itself, a divorce petition was filed by the contemnor but the same was dismissed by judgment and order dated 16-3-2025. The petitioner and her two daughters were being deprived of their livelihood, as they were refused to be maintained by the contemnor, the petitioner moved a civil application in the Family Court Appeal praying for their maintenance.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 10-4-2019 directing the contemnor to pay maintenance to the petitioner and her two daughters. The present contempt petition was filed on 22-7-2019, whereby the petitioner contended that serious prejudice was being caused to her and her daughters as the order by the Court was not being complied with and the breach of the orders was deliberate/intentional on the contemnor’s part. By an order dated 10-2-2023, this Court directed the contemnor to pay part of arrears of the maintenance of Rs 7,80,000 which was deposited by the contemnor, and that there was balance amount which was payable. The prayer for modification of the order dated 10-4-2019, however, was rejected, as there were arrears of maintenance left to be paid.
The petitioner contended that the contemnor was in arrears of Rs 18,60,000, and he had systematically avoided complying with the order of this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the contemnor was fully aware of the binding nature of the orders passed by this Court, and his obligation to pay maintenance to the petitioner and his two daughters, as directed by this Court, in its order dated 10-4-2019. The Court noted that on 23-8-2019, a notice was issued to the petitioner returnable on 6-9-2019, however, the same was returned unserved. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 8-11-2019 issuing fresh notice returnable on 19-12-2019 and on the said date, when the proceedings were listed before the Court, an order was passed recording that the contemnor was duly served, however, he was not represented.
The Court passed various orders, but the respondent could not be served and even when the petitioner tried to serve the contempt petition upon the contemnor, he was avoiding service. This Court recorded a finding that prima facie, the contemnor was in breach of the order dated 10-4-2019 and thus, issued a show cause notice to the contemnor as to why actions under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 should not be taken against him.
The Court opined that the present case was a classic case where contemnor had no regard whatsoever for law and to the orders passed by this Court and the order dated 10-4-2019, was legal, valid, subsisting and binding on the contemnor, and same was required to be complied with. The Court also opined that as the contemnor challenged the order before the Supreme Court and the said proceedings were dismissed, and even the review proceedings before the Supreme Court were dismissed, it was an onerous obligation on the contemnor to comply with the orders of this Court.
The Court noted that the contemnor’s application for modification of the quantum of the maintenance granted to the petitioner and his two daughters, was also not entertained and the same was rejected. Thus, the Court was disturbed in relation to the manner in which the contemnor tried to avoid the proceedings which was clear from the earlier orders passed by the different Benches and the Court requiring to pass order issuing bailable warrant.
The Court opined that it was clear that the contemnor neither had any regard for the orders of the Court nor had any concern whatsoever regarding his obligation to maintain the petitioner and his two daughters. Further, it was not a case of a bonafide litigant as the contemnor not only had least regard to the orders passed by this Court, but also, a reasonable, fair, and natural concern to maintain the petitioner and his own daughters was wholly lacking and deliberately neglected by him.
The Court opined the present case was a gross case wherein for six years, the contemnor in every possible manner avoided complying with the orders of the Court. The solemnity of the Court orders clearly reflected the need for human survival of the petitioner along with her two daughters, who were required to survive in a respectable manner, however, the contemnor completely lost consciousness of these basic human aspects.
The Court opined that the contemnor needed to be convicted for having committed contempt of order dated 10-4-2019, which was aggravated by the consistent breach of subsequent orders by the contemnor. The Court allowed the contempt petition and held that the contemnor was guilty of willful disobedience of order dated 10-4-2019 and thus, sentenced him to be detained in Civil prison for a period of six months.
[Sangira Manish Ganvir v. Manish Bapurao Ganvir, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 542, decided on 3-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.V. Sankpal a/w Chanchal Singh i/b R.V. Sankpal & Associates.
For the Respondent: C.S. Joshi a/w Tanvi Nimbalkar a/w Bhushan Joshi.