R.S. Jha, J.@mdashHeard Shri Jaideep Shirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2013 by which the court below i.e. the Second Additional District Judge, Chhindwara has refused to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act between the petitioner and the daughter of the respondent are pending. It is submitted that during the course of the evidence of the respondent''s daughter which was being recorded by the court below on 03.09.2012, the respondent started shouting and abusing the petitioner on account of which the statement of the respondent''s daughter could not be recoded and the proceedings were adjourned.
3. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid the petitioner filed an application for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondent which was registered as MJC No 43/12. It is stated that inspite of the fact that the respondent had committed contempt of the court, the court below by order dated 22.11.2013 has dismissed the application for initiating the contempt proceedings which is contrary to law.
4. It is submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate and take into consideration the fact that the respondent started abusing and shouting in the court thereby interfering in the proceedings in the court which amounts to contempt of the court as per the provisions 2(c) 2 of the Contempt of the Court Act. It is submitted that the court below has passed the impugned order totally ignoring the statutory provisions while dismissing the application, therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the court below be directed to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondent.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the court below in para 7 of the impugned order has clearly stated that the respondent has not committed any contempt or deliberate disobedience of any order passed by the court below nor has he violated or disrupted any proceedings of the court below. The court below has also observed that the respondent has not used unparliamentary language against the court and that the incident has occurred only on account of altercation between the petitioner and respondent both of whom are practising advocate. The court below has also observed that as the respondent has not committed any act which amounts to contempt of the court, therefore, there is no reason to initiate any contempt proceedings.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case it is clear that the court before which the proceedings took place has itself stated that the respondent has not committed any act amounting to contempt and in such circumstances, has rejected the application. When the court before whom the proceedings have taken place is itself of the opinion that no unparliamentary language or disobedience of the direction/orders has been made by the respondent then I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the court below and direct initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent. As the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this court, the petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
