- (1.) FOR the acts and deeds of the appellant in this case, which are prima facie indicative of his attitude of deliberate disobedience and direct defiance of the order of the Court to the extent of challenging the very authority of rule of law, we are constrained to initiate the proceedings against him for contempt.
(2.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 as passed in Civil Misc. Case No.17/2011 whereby, the Family Court, Ajmer made the provision for maintenance of the daughter of the appellant and directed as under:- .........[vernacular ommited text]........... When this appeal was taken up for consideration on 04.03.2013, a co-ordinate Bench took note of the purport of the order impugned as also the submissions in the last made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking to withdraw. The Bench, however, declined to accept the request for withdrawal and, instead, directed the appellant to make payment to his daughter in terms of the order impugned, i.e., a sum of Rs.42,000/- (towards first instalment of the amount payable) plus another amount at Rs.1,000/- per month within a period of 15 days. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.03.2013 is as under: - "This court is not inclined to accept the request of withdrawal made by the appellant for the reason that his daughter has to go ahead for execution of the order and that will be troublesome for her in approaching the court of law at all stages, at the same time, we direct the appellant to make payment in terms of the order i.e. Rs.42,000/- plus Rs.1,000/- per month, as directed by the Family Court and payable to his daughter, within a period of fifteen days from today. "
(3.) THE matter was, thereafter, listed before the Court on a few occasions but was adjourned and then, came up before us on 11.07.2013 when, in response to the queries, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that on 14.03.2013, a sum of Rs.42,000/- was deposited by him in the Family Court, Ajmer by moving an application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per his instructions, the deposited amount was not being disbursed by the Family Court despite requests because of the pendency of this appeal, though no specific order in that regard by the Family Court was placed before us.;