Dismissed

Anjali @ Mehak Aditya Pardasany v. Aditya Chandru Pardasany

Bombay HC5 Mar 2020CP/105/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge Bench of the Bombay High Court in Judge-in-Chief Dangre disposed of a contempt petition filed by a wife alleging the husband disobeyed maintenance orders. The Court held no disobedience occurred due to a prior Supreme Court direction that deemed a deposited sum as compliance, quashing the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; parties at liberty to proceed with the Criminal Revision Application.

Anjali @ Mehak Aditya Pardasany Vs Aditya Chandru… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

8.CP-105-20.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.105 OF 2020

¶4

Anjali @ Mehak Aditya Pardasany … Applicant versus Aditya Chandru Pardasany … Respondent

¶5

Siddhartha Shah a/w Riya Rele i/b Siddhartha Shah and Associates for the Petitioner.

¶6

Satish Maneshinde a/w Namita Maneshinde for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM :- SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶8

DATE :- MARCH 5, 2020

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

On 4^th October, 2019, on an Criminal Appeal No.1529 of 2019 being filed by the respondent against the order passed by the High Court on 21^st February, 2019 in Criminal Revision Application No.560 of 2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order.

¶11

“Considering the entirety of the matter and the fact that a sum of Rs.21.6 lakhs now stands deposited in the Registry of the High Court, we modify the aforesaid direction issued by the High Court and direct that the deposit of Rs.21.6 lakhs shall be taken as due compliance of the direction issued by the High Court. We request the High Court to take up the matter for hearing without insisting upon any further deposits in the matter.”

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition on 10^th February, 2020, alleging disobedience of the order dated 23^rd

Page 1 of 3

M.M.Salgaonkar

8.CP-105-20.doc

August, 2018 and 3^rd August, 2019 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra. She alleges that there is no payment of interim maintenance as directed by these two orders and, therefore, it amounts to disobedience.

¶17

The order dated 23^rd August, 2018 is passed on an application filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance for herself and her daughter. By the said order, the application was allowed. The respondent/husband was directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of 1.5 lakhs per month to the petitioner and Rs.40,000/- per month to the minor daughter from the date of the application. In addition, an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses was also directed to be paid.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/husband filed Revision Application No.560 of 2018. In the said Revision Application, deposit of arrears of the amount was placed as a precondition for hearing of the revision.

¶19

Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal referred to above was taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the order passed by the Court is already reproduced above.

¶20

The second order of which the disobedience is alleged is the order dated 3^rd August, 2019. Pertinent to note that the said

Page 2 of 3

M.M.Salgaonkar

8.CP-105-20.doc

order is passed below Exhibit 30 i.e. on an application preferred by the wife for issuance of arrest warrant against the respondent on account of arrears of Rs.60 lakhs. This order was passed on 3^rd August, 2019. Subsequent to this, is the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 4^th October, 2019 where the Hon’ble Apex Court had modified the direction issued by the High Court and it also clarified that deposit of the amount of Rs.21.6 lakhs in the High Court shall be taken as due compliance of the direction issued by the High Court. It directed the Criminal Revision Application to be taken up for hearing and with a caveat that same should be done without insisting upon any further deposits in the matter.

¶25

In such circumstances, there is no disobedience as alleged by the petitioner of the aforesaid orders passed by the Family Court in view of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 4^th October, 2019. There is no justification for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Necessarily, the contempt petition stands dismissed.

¶26

The parties are at liberty to move the Roster Bench for hearing of the Criminal Revision Application No.560 of 2018.

¶27

(SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

M.M.Salgaonkar

Anjali @ Mehak Aditya Pardasany v. Aditya Chandru Pardasany

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali @ Mehak Aditya Pardasany v. Aditya Chandru Pardasany

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Keshav Kanchan Vs Roopla Venkatesh Mendon

Shri. Avinash Rajendra Rasal Vs Sou. Jyoti Avinash Rasal

Sadanand Jagannath Shirke Vs Vijaya Netaji Bhosale and Ors.

Sharad Sudhir Vashish Vs Nidhi Sharad Vashist

Mukund K.P. Pillai @ Kabeer a. Pichaya Vs Mrs. Subha Mukund Pillai

Shaikh Mohd. Umer Vs Shaikh Mohd. Anjum and Ors.