MANJU SREE ROBINSON Vs. SUSHIL JOSHUA ROBINSON
LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-21
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 14,2014

Manju Sree Robinson Appellant
VERSUS
Sushil Joshua Robinson Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers. (i) to take 'suo motu' cognizance of contempt committed on the face of the record of this court and summon the contemnor no. 1 and contemnor no. 2 personally before this Hon'ble Court for filing false affidavit with a false marriage declaration deed before this Hon'ble Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 48 of 2014: Sushil Joshua Robinson Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court Lucknow and another and punish them in accordance with law; and (ii) the interim order dated 7.5.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 48 of 2014: Sushil Joshua Robinson Versus Principal Judge Family Court Lucknkow and another may be set aside and Civil Revision Petition No. 48 may be dismissed with heavy cost.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the petitioner who appeared in person, that in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2014: Sushil Joshua Robinson Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, an affidavit on 1.5.2014 was filed by the opposite party no. 1 which contains certain false averments which led this Court to pass an interim order providing therein that the operation and implementation of the order dated 5.3.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on the application of the defendant/opposite party no. 2 (petitioner herein) filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. In Misc. Case No. 60 of 2012 arising out of the Original Suit No. 1845 of 2009 shall remain stayed. It has been argued by the petitioner that filing of false affidavit before this Court amounts to criminal contempt as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, 2003 5 SCC 376 and various other pronouncements hence this Court should issue notices to the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be punished for committing criminal contempt.
(3.) IT has further been argued by the petitioner that since the petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, as such, there is no need of seeking any consent in writing of the Advocate General for instituting the instant proceedings. Submission is that this Court under Article 215 being a Court of record can exercise powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.