Dismissed

Ramavtar Alias Pappu S/O Soji v. Smt Girija W/O Shri Ramavtar Alias Pappu Wife of Shri Jagdish

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2024CCP/1438/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging violation of an interim order restraining remarriage, the High Court held that since the wife married before the interim order, no violation existed. Dismissing the petition as not a fit case to proceed given the unrelated appeal appeal was also dismissed, notices were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; notices discharged.

Ramavtar Alias Pappu S/O Soji Vs Smt Girija W/O… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:76-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1438/2019

¶4

¶5

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3308/2018

¶6

Ramavtar @ Pappu S/o Soji, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kabra, Police Station Mehandwas, Tehsil And District Tonk Raj.

¶7

----Petitioner/Non-Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt Girija W/o Shri Ramavtar Alias Pappu Wife Of Shri Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Mehandwas, Police Station Mehandwas, Tehsil And District Tonk

¶10

----Respondent/Applicant

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal with Mr. Mohan Choudhary

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

02/01/2024

¶15

This petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

¶16

It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that though in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3308/2018 Ramavtar @ Pappu Vs. Smt. Girija which was filed against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Tonk, an interim order dated 02.04.2019 was passed by the Court restraining the respondent-wife from contracting second marriage pending disposal of the appeal, she has contracted marriage and, therefore, she be dealt appropriately for violation of the directions issued by this Court.

[2024:RJ-JP:76-DB]

[CMA-3308/2018]

(2 of 4)

Reply to the petition was filed inter-alia indicating that the decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court, Tonk on 05.07.2018 and on 21.07.2018, the respondent-wife entered into the wedlock with one Sanjay Singh Gurjar and that one daughter has been born to them on 19.06.2019. The marriage certificate as well as birth certificate has been produced along with the reply.

¶21

It has been submitted that as the marriage was solemnized before the interim order granted by this Court, there is no violation of the directions issued by this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was filed on 23.07.2018 against the decree of divorce, wherein, notice was issued on 07.08.2018 and efforts were made for reconciliation, however, during the course of reconciliation it was not indicated that the respondent-wife has already entered into a wedlock and the Court was allowed to pass an interim order on 02.04.2019. It is only after the petitioner came across the information about the marriage solemnized by the respondentwife that the contempt petition was filed before the Court.

¶23

Submissions have been made that the entire conduct of the respondent-wife in keeping the Court in dark pertaining to the marriage while the matter was under conciliation and permitting to pass interim order, itself amounts to committing contempt and therefore, the respondent-wife be dealt with appropriately. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife made submission that the entire petition was based on the alleged violation of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by this Court when actually the marriage had already taken place and therefore, in so far as the

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:76-DB]

[CMA-3308/2018]

allegations about the violation of the interim order is concerned, the same has no basis.

¶28

Further, the submissions have been made that the allegations about permitting the Court to pass the interim order despite the fact that respondent-wife has already entered into the wedlock, has not been made a ground in the petition and with the nature of the allegations, now made the petitioner cannot be proceeded against based on the said oral allegations, without seeking her reply.

¶29

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. It is apparently not in dispute that the interim order dated 02.04.2019 was passed by this Court unaware of the fact that the respondent-wife had already entered into the wedlock. The said information was not supplied to the Court either by the respondent-wife or was not disclosed by learned counsel before the Court at the time when the interim order was granted by this Court. However, in so far as the act of entering into the marriage on 21.07.2018 i.e. much before the order passed by this Court on 02.04.2019, by itself cannot be termed as in violation of the directions issued by this Court.

¶30

Though, the conduct of the respondent-wife in not indicating the fact of marriage and that she was pregnant at the time when interim order was granted by the Court cannot be appreciated, in the overall circumstances of the case and the fact that the appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the decree of divorce has

[2024:RJ-JP:76-DB]

[CMA-3308/2018]

(4 of 4)

been dismissed by this Court today, we do not find it a fit case now to proceed against the respondent-wife.

¶35

Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices stand discharged.

¶36

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶37

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶38

AARZOO ARORA /TANISHA/50

Ramavtar Alias Pappu S/O Soji v. Smt Girija W/O Shri Ramavtar Alias Pappu Wife of Shri Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavtar Alias Pappu S/O Soji v. Smt Girija W/O Shri Ramavtar Alias Pappu Wife of Shri Jagdish

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

M/S Surya Stone Mines Vs Appellate Authority-Iii, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax

M/S Rajasthan Khadi Sangh Vs Appellate Authority-Ii, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax

M/S Rajasthan Khadi Sangh Vs Appellate Authority -Ii, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax

M/S Khaitan Electricals Ltd. Vs State Finance Departmentors

M/S Khaitan Electricals Ltd. Vs State Finance Departmentors

M/S Harish Forex Services Pvt. Limited Vs Assistant Director of Enforcement