Dismissed

Nancy Padma Ruby, v. Paul Anand Lourd

Madras HC7 Nov 2024CONT P/3229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition for punishing the respondent for disobeying a family court order on child visitation rights. The bench held that Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be used for executing civil decrees, especially as efficacious remedies exist under the Divorce Act. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Family Court for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the concerned Court for enforcement of the order.

Nancy Padma Ruby, Vs Paul Anand Lourd — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Cont. P.No.3229 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

Cont.P.No. 3229 of 2024

Nancy Padma Ruby

... Petitioner

Vs.

Paul Anand Lourd

... Respondent

Prayer: The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the order dated 13.10.2022 by this Hon'ble Court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.P.No.1250 of 2019.

¶13

For Petitioner

¶14

: Ms. Jayashree

¶15

for M/s. Swaminathan Law Associates

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Cont. P.No.3229 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶21

The present contempt petition has been instituted to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the order passed by the VII Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.P.No.1250 of 2019.

¶22

The respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.1250 of 2019 for seeking dissolution of marriage under the Divorce Act 1869. During the pendency of the said IDOP., a petition was filed by the petitioner herein seeking visitation right. The Family Court allowed the petition partly permitting the petitioner to visit her children namely, Ashwelt Cameran Paul, aged about 7 years and Alocious Cameran paul,aged about 3 years, on the 1st and 3rd Saturday between 10.00 to 1.00 p.m. at the Child Care Centre, Family Court, at Chennai. Since the order of the Family Court has not been complied with by the respondent, the present contempt petition came to be instituted.

¶23

Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act cannot be expanded for the

¶24

purpose of execution of orders or decrees passed by the Family Courts or the Civil Courts. The very object of Contempt of Courts Act is to protect the

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Cont. P.No.3229 of 2024

¶28

administration of justice and not for execution of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts.

¶29

Section 10 of the Contempt Courts Act is to be invoked only in

¶30

exceptional circumstances, where reports are received from the Subordinate Courts regarding commission of Contempt of Court, but not otherwise. Thus, the present contempt petition filed seeking enforcement of the order passed by the Family Court is not entertainable since, the petitioner is having efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Divorce Act itself.

¶31

By granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court concerned

¶32

for enforcement of the order, the present Contempt Petition stands dismissed.

¶33

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

¶34

07.11.2024

¶35

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mrp

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

Cont. P.No.3229 of 2024

¶39

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶40

mrp

¶41

Cont.P.No.3229 of 2024

¶42

07.11.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4

Nancy Padma Ruby, v. Paul Anand Lourd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nancy Padma Ruby, v. Paul Anand Lourd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sumathi Vs Union of India

Vazhivittan Ayyanar Vs State by

A.Ahamed Ali Vs the State Rep.by

N.Remadevi Vs The Director

M.Arul Keerthy Vs Union Territory of Pondicherry

S.Karthick Raja Vs The Union of India