IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.34 OF 2007 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6352 OF 2004

Smt. Chintala Syamala       ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Chintala Venkata Satyanarayana Rao       ...Respondent(s)

With I.A. No.2 i  n   Civil Appeal No.6352 of 2004   

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On 22nd February, 2006, while disposing Civil appeal No.6352 of 2004, this

Court passed the following order:

“Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent, who is appearing in person.

The respondent filed a petition for grant of decree for divorce on the ground of  cruelty,  adultery and desertion.   The trial court dismissed the petition holding that none of the three grounds was proved.  Against the said order when an appeal was preferred  by  the  respondent  before  the  High  Court,  by  the impugned order,  a  decree for  divorce has  been granted on the ground of desertion.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Having heard the parties at length, we are of the view that  the  High  Court  has  not  committed  any  error  in  granting decree for divorce on the  ground of desertion, but we are

...2/-

- 2 -  

of  the  view that  no  provision  has  been made in  the  impugned order either with respect to permanent alimony or with respect to the marriage of  Navatha,  second daughter of  the  parties.   The respondent stated before this Court that he undertakes to pay a sum of Rs. Eight lacs to the appellant-wife, i.e., Rs. Five lacs by way of permanent alimony and Rs. Three lacs towards expenses of marriage of the said second daughter.  The said amount shall be paid  by  Account  Payee  Demands  Drafts  in  the  name  of  the appellant-wife.  The respondent stated that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. Eight lacs, a sum of Rs. Four lacs shall be paid by 31st August, 2006 and the balance amount of Rs. Four lacs will be paid by 30th April, 2007.  Let the respondent pay the aforesaid amount accordingly.  It has been stated by the respondent that a criminal  case  under  Sections  448  and  379  of  the  Indian  Penal Code is pending against his brother Vijay Kumar, bearing C.R. No.719  of  2003,  which  is  pending  in  the  Court  of  IIIrd Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.  In view of the aforesaid facts, the criminal prosecution of Vijay Kumar in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.  It has been stated by the respondent that his brother Vijay Kumar has filed Original Suit No.3134 of 2003, which  is  pending in  the Court  of  First  Additional  Junior  Civil Judge,  Vijayawada,  which  shall  be  withdrawn  by  his  brother Vijay Kumar.  It  is  directed that  the said civil  suit  shall  stand withdrawn.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

According to the directions given in the aforesaid order, the respondent-

husband was required to pay the sum of Rupees five lakhs to the wife  by way of

permanent alimony and another sum of Rupees three lakhs towards the expenses of

the marriage of the second daughter begotten by the respondent from the  appellant.

Time  was also fixed for payment of the

...3/-

- 3 -  

aforesaid  amount,  i.e.,  Rupees  four  lakhs  by  31st  August,  2006,  and  the  balance

amount by 30th April, 2007.  As the contemnor agreed to pay the permanent alimony

for the maintenance of the wife and expenses towards the marriage of the daughter,

this  Court  quashed  the  prosecution pending  against  Vijay Kumar,  brother  of  the

contemnor, in the criminal case, bearing C.R. No.719 of 2003, under Sections 448 and

379  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860,  pending  in  the  court  of  IIIrd  Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada, within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

In  this  contempt  petition,  it  has  been  stated  that,  in  spite  of  the

undertaking  given  before  this  Court  to  pay  Rupees  eight  lakhs  to  the  wife,  the

contemnor has not paid a single penny.  This fact has not been controverted by the

contemnor by filing reply to the show cause notice.  On the last date, the contemnor

who is an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary in the Government of India appeared

in-person and stated that he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance in

terms of the undertaking.  When we were going to pass the order, Mr. R.K. Kapoor,

learned counsel intervened and made a prayer that he may be allowed to appear in

this case as an amicus curiae.  His prayer was granted.  Today, Mr. R.K. Kapoor

made a prayer that the quantum of maintenance may be reduced from Rupees eight

lakhs to Rupees two lakhs wherefor an application for modification of order dated

22nd February, 2006 has also been filed.  We do not find any ground to modify the

quantum of maintenance.  However, as the contemnor has expressed his inability to

pay the amount of maintenance in terms of the order passed by this Court, we do not

consider it  appropriate to proceed with the contempt case.   At the same time, we

consider it just and expedient to recall order dated 22nd February, 2006 passed in

Civil Appeal

....4/-

- 4 -

No.6352  of  2004.   Accordingly,  I.A.  No.2  of  2008  filed  by  the  contemnor  for

modification of order dated 22nd February, 2006 is rejected.  The order passed by this

Court on 22nd February, 2006 is hereby recalled.  Civil Appeal No.6352 of 2004 shall

now be placed for consideration on merits.  It is made clear that in view of recall of

order dated 22nd February, 2006, the criminal proceedings in C.R. No.719 of  2003

against Vijay Kumar, which was quashed by this Court, shall stand revived and shall

proceed in accordance with law.  The contempt petition stands, accordingly, disposed

of.     

Let  a  copy  of  this  order  be  sent  to  the  IIIrd  Metropolitan  Magistrate,

Vijayawada,  within the State of Andhra Pradesh,  for taking further steps in C.R.

No.719 of 2003 against Vijay Kumar by fax as well.

Let  the  appeal  be  placed  for  consideration  after  four  weeks  before  an

appropriate Bench.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, July 28, 2008.