No Intra-Court Appeal Against Contempt Court's Refusal To Initiate Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that an intra-court appeal (special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952) is not maintainable against an order of the contempt court unless it is shown that the contempt court has overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding the rights of the parties or adjudicating on merits of the case.The Court held that dismissal...
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that an intra-court appeal (special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952) is not maintainable against an order of the contempt court unless it is shown that the contempt court has overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding the rights of the parties or adjudicating on merits of the case.
The Court held that dismissal of contempt application on grounds of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings is not a decision on merits of the case and does not decide the rights of the parties. Therefore, such a dismissal is not appealable by way of a special appeal.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
“a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 is only maintainable if the learned Single Judge has overstepped its jurisdiction and jumped into deciding on merits of the earlier order. A special appeal against an order of contempt Court would not be maintainable if the learned Single Judge has declined to initiate the contempt proceeding without delving into the merits of the dispute.”
Parties were married as per Hindu rites. Due to differences, the wife-respondent filed cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband-appellant and his family. Wife filed an affidavit declaring her income and assets as 'NA' and consequently, obtained an ex-parte order of interim maintenance.
The husband filed an application under Section 340 CrPC and simultaneously a contempt application against the false affidavit filed by the wife. The Single Judge, in contempt jurisdiction, directed the husband to pursue his remedy under Section 340 CrPC without stating anything on the merits of the case.
This order was challenged by the husband in intra-court appeal (special appeal).
The Court observed that the Single Judge had refused to entertain contempt application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, since the husband-appellant had already initiated proceedings under Section 340 CrPC also for the same issue.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples Cooperative v. Chunni
Lal Nanda and Others and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami, Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., Lucknow and Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Shri Veer Bahadur Yadav, the Court observed the special appeal/ intra-court appeal against an order of the contempt court is not maintainable unless the contempt court oversteps its jurisdiction and gives an order on the merits of the original case between the parties.
The Court held that though under Section 379 BNSS, both proceedings can be simultaneously undertaken, it does not bound the Courts from taking action in contempt proceedings.
“It may be noted that the scope of jurisdiction of Contempt Court is to determine whether contempt is committed and to impose appropriate sanctions if it has been committed. The merits of the original controversy are outside the domain of the contempt court. However, when the Contempt Court issues directions or discusses on the merits of the original controversy, it oversteps its jurisdiction.”
The Court held that dismissing the contempt application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings when proceedings under Section 379 BNSS were already in motion, was not a decision on merits of the case or determining the rights of the parties.
Case Title: Saurav Raj v. Sonakshi Verma