Madras High Court imposes ₹50k costs on man who filed contempt plea against Family Court judge for not concluding hearing on time

The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a man, who had filed a contempt of court petition against a judge of the Family Court in the city claiming that the judge had failed to wind up his divorce proceedings within the stipulated time period set by the High Court [GP Bhaskar v Sumathi]. .In a judgement passed on December 9, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madras High Court directed the man, one GP Bhaskar to deposit the amount with the Chief Justice’s Relief Fund.The Court said that the contempt petition filed by Bhaskar was a clear case of abuse of the process of law. It also questioned why the High Court Registry had failed to rightly assess the contempt petition and why it had mechanically numbered it? .Bhaskar had filed for divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty in 2013. Subsequently, he had moved the High Court seeking speedy disposal of his divorce plea and in January 2017, the High Court directed the family court to dispose of the divorce petition by March 31, 2017. In the meanwhile, Bhaskar's estranged wife filed an interlocutory application seeking maintenance. Both parties then filed appeals and cross appeals on the issue of interim maintenance and hence, the divorce proceedings got delayed.Last year, Bhaskar filed a petition before the high Court seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the family court judge for such delay in the divorce case.Last week, however, the Court said that the delay had clearly been caused by the litigants themselves. The High Court also said that a contempt of court petition for alleged disobedience of a 2017 order could not be filed after passing of more than a year of such delay. The contempt of court plea was filed in July this year and the judge against whom Bhaskar wanted the contempt proceedings initiated, was not even the presiding officer of his case in 2017, the High Court noted.."Though this Court directed the trial court to dispose of the divorce petition on or before 31.03.2017, only because of the petitioner, there was delay in disposal of the main petition. In fact, even after ordering interim maintenance, the petitioner did not even comply with the same. Therefore, the execution petition has also been filed as against the petitioner and it is pending before the Family Court. As such, the contempt petition is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Even then, the Registry, without noticing the date of the order, mechanically numbered the contempt petition. It is also curious to note that the Presiding Officer / the first respondent is presiding the Court only from 25.08.2021, whereas the order was passed by this Court on 11.01.2017. Therefore, the first respondent is being the Presiding Officer of the Court cannot be impleaded as a contemnor in any event," the Court said. .Advocate Vedasree appeared for Bhaskar.Advocate M Santhanaraman appeared for the respondent family court judge.[Read Judgment]