Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/121920/2009 10/ 10 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1219 of 2009
=========================================================
SHILPA
R SHINDE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SUJIT
J MUNSHI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AMRISH K PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR HEMANG M SHAH for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH
Date
: 18/03/2009
ORAL
ORDER
Today
the parties are present. On the first occasion, as the Court was
requested by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that
the present proceedings may be conducted in my Chamber, the
proceedings are taken up for hearing in the Chamber. On 06th
March 2009 also, the proceedings of the matter were conducted in the
Chamber.
Shri
Amrish Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and
Shri Hemang Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, are
present. It is submitted by Shri Hemang Shah, learned counsel
appearing for respondent, that Shri Shalin Mehta and himself, may be
permitted to retire from the as learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Sujit Munshi for their personal reasons.
The
request is accepted. Shri Shalin Mehta and Shri Hemang Shah, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, are permitted to retire from
the matter from the next date of hearing. So on the next date of
hearing, the respondent can arrange for his counsel. The respondent,
who is present in the court, is made to understand that as now Shri
Shalin Mehta and Shri Hemang Shah are permitted to retire from this
case by this Court, and the respondent shall have to arrange for
another counsel, if he so desires, to defend himself by an advocate.
Passing
of this order automatically shall not take out the school
authorities from the obligation of arranging a meeting of the
petitioner with the minor child Akshada. The Court is informed that
till date the intimation in respect of a Sunday convenient to the
institution, has not been received by the petitioner. It is expected
that the Sarvanaman Vidya Mandir shall comply with the earlier
directions issued by this Court in presence of its representative.
I
have received an R.P.A.D. letter dated 12th March 2009
along with annexures, addressed to me by the respondent, including
the report of one consulting Pediatrician Dr.Anil Chikermane. The
said letter dated 12th March 2009 along with annexures is
taken on record and the same is ordered to be kept in the file of
present petition.
When
this matter was taken up for hearing on 06th March 2009,
the petitioner in presence of all the concerned persons, including
the respondent, was asked not to address any letter directly to the
Court. The displeasure of the Court was also expressed saying that
such letters are treated as implied attempt to influence the Court.
All the papers received with the letter addressed by the petitioner
on earlier occasion, were decided to be kept on record, so that the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent can read the contents
of the letter, notes and other details and after perusing those
papers can make himself aware. The learned counsel defending the
respondent may not feel anything like hide and seek game on account
of the letter addressed to the Court by the petitioner.
It
is a matter of great shock and surprise that the respondent claiming
to be an educated person has committed similar error, perhaps
intentional, by addressing the aforesaid letter dated 12th
March 2009. The plain reading of the letter takes me to a conclusion
prima facie that the respondent intends to put pressure on the
Presiding Judge of this Court i.e. myself, so that the Court may
leave the matter or may say something, under pressure in favour of
the respondent. This is a case where the petitioner has approached
this Court with a grievance along with other grievances that he may
have with third party.
The
respondent has conveniently shifted her minor child Akshada to
Bharuch, so that the petitioner may not see the minor child or can
get consent decree executed conveniently, though a specific right
was created in her favour in a compromised decree, taking the
shelter of one event that the petitioner had left India for some
short span of time.
True
it is that independent proceedings under Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act have been initiated to get modified the consent decree
passed between the parties, however, till date the compromised
decree is an enforceable order and, therefore, it appears that the
respondent may have decided to adopt unhealthy tactics of addressing
letter of the nature which has been received by this Court by
R.P.A.D. It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid letter
dated 12th March 2009 is received from and written by
respondent no.1.
This
act of respondent, if the letter is read as it is, is nothing but an
attempt to hamper the smooth hearing of the case and a Presiding
Officer can be placed under embarrassment making indirect
allegations. Such a conduct is prima facie contemptuous and,
therefore, necessary proceedings in such or similar cases should be
initiated and, therefore, this Court is inclined to initiate the
contempt proceedings against the respondent herein, Suo Motu.
The
respondent herein has tried to suggest indirectly that as respondent
had some dispute or grievance with one Shri Haldar, Officer of the
State Government serving in I.A.S. Cadre, and, therefore, the
proceedings may have taken present shape and that which the
respondent is not able to understand. This impliedly suggests that
the proceedings before this Court are being conducted, perhaps
according to respondent, on account of that officer i.e. Mr.Haldar.
As
such in the present petition, the question of difference of opinion
or quarrel between the petitioner and Mr.Haldar has no relevance.
Welfare of the minor child, Akshada, ultimately is of paramount
consideration. In such or similar cases and when the Court is aware
that the respondent has married to one another lady, it is the duty
of the Court to know the status, heath, age, education and other
aspects of the lady who married with the respondent after divorce
with the petitioner, because relation between the petitioner and the
minor child Akshada would be of mother and daughter, whereas the
relation between the minor child Akshada and present wife of
respondent would be of daughter and a step-mother respectively. In
such a situation, the Court is supposed to inquire into certain
details. However, it appears that the respondent has skillfully
attempted with some motive to tag the queries raised by the Court to
the respondent and his quarrel/dispute with Mr.Haldar. The totality,
therefore, has taken me to a decision that the contempt proceedings
are required to be initiated against the respondent.
The
Registry is directed to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings
against respondent herein. A copy of the present order as well as a
xerox copy of the aforesaid letter dated 12th March 2009
addressed by the respondent herein received by this Court, be sent
to the Bench taking up Contempt matters, after obtaining appropriate
orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice, if need be.
At
the outset, it is relevant to note that as per the Roster, number of
matters are being listed everyday and the present dispute being a
dispute between the litigants who were once husband and wife and as
there was scope to call minor child Akshada in the Court, it was
rightly submitted by Shri Shalin Mehta, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent, that instead of open Court room, the proceedings
may be heard and decided in the Chamber, otherwise the parties may
not be be able to place their say satusfactorily, more particularly,
when the allegations and counter-allegations against each other
(petitioner and respondent) are of sensitive nature, and the
suggestion was accepted at the instance of respondent.
As
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not able to
make submissions on merit today, it would not be either proper,
justified or appropriate to pass further orders in reference to the
regular meetings further of the petitioner with the minor child
Akshada and fixation of time table of meeting of minor child Akshada
and petitioner during school vacation hearing needs to be adjourned.
This is a case where possibly this Court even can direct the
respondent to see that the minor child Akshada is again admitted in
one of the schools at Vadodara City, so that the purpose of
compromised decree may not get frustrated or defeated, however, such
an order normally should be passed after affording all the
opportunities to the other side and, therefore, today the Court is
not inclined to pass any orders in this regard though the same is
pressed by Shri Amrish Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
Hence,
in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned to 13th
April 2009.
(C.K.
Buch, J)
Aakar
Top