The court held the respondent guilty of contempt for willfully violating orders to facilitate the petitioner's visitation with the child. Finding imprisonment disproportionate due to the child's trauma and the respondent's first-time status, the court spared physical custody as punishment but issued a stern warning against further violations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4&5 16.08.2021 TN
CPAN 409 of 2020 IA No: CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No: CAN 5583 of 2020) With CPAN 522 of 2020 Sri Saibal Basu Vs. Smt. Sudeepta Basu
Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey
…. for the applicant/petitioner
Mr. Saumyen Datta, Mr. Tapas Singha Roy
…. for the alleged contemnor
Taking a cue from the order dated August 13, 2021, it is evident from the record that, despite getting adequate opportunity, the contemnor chose not to file any affidavit-in-opposition. As such, the allegations made in the contempt application stand unrebutted by non-traverse.
Although learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor submits that affidavit could not be filed due to talks of settlement going on between the parties and that, on the relevant date, as directed in the order of the court below, the child of the parties
2
fell ill, there is nothing on record to establish such contentions. Moreover, the ample time given to the contemnor to file affidavit-in-opposition was wasted by the contemnor and, hence, such flimsy excuse cannot be accepted.
Thus, it is clearly evident that the orders dated September 5, 2019 and September 19, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fifteenth Court at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas were clearly violated by the contemnor by not making the child of the parties available for visitation by the petitioner, as per the directions incorporated in the said order.
As such, the contemnor is held guilty of contempt of court by willful and deliberate violation of the aforementioned orders of the Additional District Judge by not allowing visitation to the father.
As far as the punishment is concerned, it is high time that it percolates to litigants that even orders of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) are equally sacrosanct and binding as that of the Supreme Court. The hierarchy of administration of justice is merely for the purpose of efficacious administration and to incorporate checks and bounds in the judicial system. Irrespective of the fact that only the High Courts and the Supreme Court are courts of record, the binding force of orders passed by each and every court of law
3
is equal. Irrespective of class, creed, gender and social position, all are equal in the eye of law and have to obey the specific directions issued by all courts of law, unless set aside by a competent appellate/revisional forum.
Keeping that in mind, it may be noted that it was clearly given out to the contemnor that the contemnor would be committed to a week’s imprisonment, during which her child would be given in the custody of the petitioner-father.
Such specific impression and the prospect of imprisonment and being parted with her son has created sufficient trauma in the mind of the contemnor, which is evident from the behaviour of the contemnor in court today as well. Since the respondent is a first-time contemnor, it is deemed that such trauma was adequate punishment for the contumacious act and actual imprisonment would not only be disproportionate with the violation but also may create a further trauma in the mind of the minor child of the parties, as was rightly submitted by the learned senior advocate appearing for the contemnor.
However, the contemnor is specifically warned not to repeat her contumacious act by violating any order of courts of any stratum of the hierarchy of the justice delivery system.
4
With such observations, the contempt applications bearing CPAN No. 409 of 2020 and CPAN No. 522 of 2020 are disposed of without any order as to costs.
CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No: CAN 5583 of 2020) is disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a first-time contemnor should be imprisoned for violating visitation orders while the child is a minor.
Whether the binding force of civil court orders applies equally irrespective of the court's hierarchical position.
Sri Saibal Basu
Smt. Sudeepta Basu
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
