Madras HC imposes costs of ₹50,000 on litigant for filing contempt of court petition against family court judge
The Hindu
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan said a contempt petition cannot be filed in 2021 for alleged disobedience of an order passed in 2017 with respect to the early disposal of a divorce case; he found the litigant solely responsible for the delay
The Madras High Court has dismissed a contempt of court petition filed against a family court judge for not disposing of a divorce case within a stipulated period of time, and has also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan ordered that the costs should be paid to the Chief Justice’s Relief Fund within two weeks. He also pulled up the High Court Registry for having numbered the contempt petition without proper assessment.
The judge pointed out that the petitioner, G.P. Bhaskar had moved the divorce plea, on grounds of cruelty and desertion, before the first Additional Family Court in Chennai in 2013. In 2017, he moved the High Court for speedy disposal of the plea.
Disposing of his civil revision petition on January 11, 2017, the High Court directed the family court to dispose of the divorce petition by March 31, 2017. In the meantime, the petitioner’s wife took out an interlocutory application seeking maintenance.
Though the woman had sought ₹30,000 a month, the family court directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to her and ₹5,000 a month to their child. It also ordered payment of ₹20,000 towards litigation expenses to the woman. Aggrieved over the order passed on the interlocutory application, both the wife and husband had preferred individual appeals before the High Court in 2017 and those appeals were dismissed by the High Court only on February 11, 2021.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan held that the husband’s action in having filed an appeal against the interlocutory order by the family court and then preferring the present contempt petition against the presiding officer was nothing but an abuse of process of court.
The judge said only the litigant was responsible for the delay in disposal of the divorce petition. Further, referring to the limitation period prescribed under Section 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, the judge said, if at all any contempt had been made out, such a petition should have been filed within a year.
The Madras High Court on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, rejected a plea by former special Director General of Police (DGP) Rajesh Das to restore the electricity service connection to a bungalow in Thaiyur near Kelambakkam in Chengalpattu district, and to restrain Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Tangedco) officials from disturbing the power supply in future.
The Madras High Court on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, permitted Anna University to deposit, in three monthly instalments, an amount of ₹73.23 lakh before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) as a condition to hear a statutory appeal preferred by the varsity against the Coimbatore Regional Provident Fund (RPF) Commissioner’s order to pay dues to the tune of ₹2.44 crore to contract employees.