- (1.)IN Criminal Misc. Application No. 28907 of 2007, this Court on 22. 01. 2008 had passed following order:
"heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashok Singh for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA. The applicant has filed this application under section 482 seeking permission to release the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,77,000/- which was deposited by the SDM, Doomariyaganj in PLA account no. 8483-00-104-00 Civil Court, District Siddarth Nagar on 31. 3. 06 in compliance of the order dated 24. 2. 2006 and 8. 6. 06 passed by JM, Siddarth Nagar under section 128 Cr. P. C. in case no. 270 of 2006. As this application was directed to be connected with earlier criminal revision and criminal miscellaneous applications between the parties, I have perused the orders passed in the same. Earlier, opposite party no. 2 had filed Crl. Revision no. 1040 of 2006 challenging the order dated 19. 4. 2005 passed by Family Court awarding maintenance allowance to the wife-applicant and her three children, at the total rate of Rs. 13,000/- per month and the revisions against the said order passed in different courts. By order dated 24. 2. 2006 in the aforesaid revision it was directed that if the applicant deposits Rs. 90,000/- before the JM, Siddarth Nagar in Crl. Case No. 169 of 2005 by 9. 3. 2006, the execution of the non-bailable warrant and recovery warrant shall remain stayed. It appears that the applicant failed to deposit the said amount in time. Consequently, an order was passed on 24. 2. 2006 for releasing the entire amount and by auction of the land a sum of Rs. 2,77,000/- has been realized. The said order was also challenged in another criminal revision. However, it is pointed out by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that he had deposited Rs. 90,000/- in the tehsil, Dumariyaganj, Siddarth Nagar in pursuance of the order of Hon. V. K. Chaturvedi, J. on 24. 2. 2006. No doubt, this deposit was not made at the right place. However, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant is given liberty to move an application before the said authority to withdraw the sum of Rs. 90,000/-, which may be given to her within one week thereafter. Opposite party no. 2 is further directed to pay the maintenance allowance to the applicant and her three children at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- by the 7th day of each month. List this application and other connected matters for final hearing on 25. 2. 2008. In case of default by opposite party no. 2 in paying the monthly maintenance allowance as directed above, the applicant will be free to move an application for release of the amount of Rs. 2,77,000/-, which has been deposited with the SDM in PLA account aforesaid. "

(2.)COMPLAINING non-compliance of the aforementioned order contempt proceedings have been initiated and pursuant to the same notices have been issued. Today on the matter being taken up, the concerned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sidharth Nagar, has field his affidavit and has explained the circumstances that by no means any contempt has been committed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Three Cheers Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. CESC Ltd. AIR SCW 2008 7951, has taken the view that purpose and object of contempt proceeding is only to see that order of court is complied with and not unnecessarily proceed against persons, as if they are ordinary petty criminals and for initiation of contempt proceeding, there has to be willful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of alleged contemnor. Relevant extract is being quoted below: "contempt of Court is a matter which deserves to be dealt with all seriousness. In Mriityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman and Ors. (Ors) (2001) 3 SCC739, this Court held:
"13. Before, however, proceeding with the matter any further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to be true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of justice which if allowed would even permeate in our society (vide Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia ). This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law Courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction the majesty of law. "

(3.)IN Chhotu Ram v. Urbashi Gulati and Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 530, this Court held that a contempt of Court proceeding being quasi criminal in nature, the burden to prove would be upon the person who made such an allegation. A person cannot be sentenced on mere probability. Wilful disobedience and contumacious conduct is the basis on which a contemnor can be punished. Such a finding cannot be arrived at on ipsi dixit of the Court. It must be arrived at on the materials brought on record by the parties. Yet again in Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 21, it was opined:
"15. It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1971 - the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation - the act o acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. "