1982 (5) TMI 195 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the High Court.
2. Case against the wife for disobedience of the injunction order.
3. Case against the husband as an aider and abettor of contempt.
4. Distinction between civil and criminal contempt.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate court's orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the High Court:

The plaintiff filed a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents violated an injunction order issued by a subordinate judge. The court examined whether such a petition is maintainable in the High Court. The judgment clarified that the High Court has discretionary power under Section 10 of the Act but emphasized that the proper court to try cases of disobedience of injunction is the court which issued the order. The judgment cited historical precedents and legal principles, concluding that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction in this matter when an effective remedy is available under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Case against the wife for disobedience of the injunction order:

The court found that the wife, being the defendant in the suit, is directly bound by the injunction order. The plaintiff alleged that she disobeyed the order, and the remedy for such disobedience is provided under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment explained that the court which issued the injunction has the jurisdiction to punish for its disobedience, including attachment of property and detention in civil prison. The court emphasized that the High Court should not intervene in such matters, as the subordinate judge is best positioned to ascertain the facts and determine the extent of the disobedience.

3. Case against the husband as an aider and abettor of contempt:

The plaintiff argued that the husband, though not a party to the suit, should be punished for aiding and abetting the wife's disobedience of the injunction. The court rejected this argument, stating that Indian law, as codified in the Civil Procedure Code, does not permit the punishment of individuals who are not parties to the suit for aiding and abetting contempt. The judgment cited several authorities, including the Privy Council and Indian High Courts, which consistently held that only the person directly bound by the injunction can be punished for its disobedience. The court concluded that the husband cannot be held liable for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, as aiding and abetting a breach of injunction does not constitute criminal contempt.

4. Distinction between civil and criminal contempt:

The judgment elaborated on the distinction between civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt involves failure to comply with a court order, and its primary purpose is remedial and coercive, aimed at enforcing the order for the benefit of the party entitled to it. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves actions that obstruct or undermine the administration of justice and is penal in nature. The court concluded that the disobedience of the injunction by the wife constitutes civil contempt, and aiding and abetting such disobedience does not elevate it to criminal contempt.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate court's orders:

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to punish for disobedience of an injunction order lies with the court that issued the order. The judgment highlighted the procedural framework provided by the Civil Procedure Code, which includes provisions for appeals and enforcement of injunctions. The High Court's intervention in such matters would lead to procedural anomalies and undermine the established legal process. The court concluded that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act to punish for contempt of subordinate court's orders when an effective remedy is available within the procedural framework of the Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the application, stating that the plaintiff should seek remedy under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code in the court that issued the injunction. The judgment clarified that the High Court should not intervene in matters of civil contempt when an effective remedy is available in the lower courts. The court made no order as to costs and emphasized that the subordinate judge should decide the application according to law.