Daily Archives: June 11, 2015

Children taken by hubby & NO maintenance. Still, NOT contempt of court! Madras HC. Wife 2 run 4 execution !!

A woman approaches the MADRAS HC saying her husband has taken away her kids by force and he is also NOT paying her maintenance as ordered by the lower court, and all this amounts to contempt of court

Still the Honourable Madras HC refuses to accept the wife’s argument and tells her to try and start execution proceedings IF at she wants money !!

This will be a good weapon for husbands who wish to fight back usurious maintenance claims where kids are also alienated from the dad !!


Children taken by hubby & NO maintenance. Still, NOT contempt of court! Madras HC. Wife 2 try execution 2 collect moolah!


  • Wife wins Moollah in lower court
  • Rs 20 K per month with arrears!
  • Husband does NOT pay maintenance
  • Husband also takes away kids
  • Wife files for contempt of court saying NON payment of maintenance and taking away kid are contempt
  • HC says both are NOT contempt !!
  • Read below for detailed order

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com


This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.







DATED : 05.01.2015



Contempt Petition No.3411 of 2014

Bhuvaneshwari Calambakkam                   .. Petitioner


B.Nagendran                 .. Respondent

Prayer:- Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for filing false statement in CRP, disobedience and willful breach of undertakings in CRP(PD) No.42 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 regarding permanent girl children custody and discontinuing maintenance payment made.

For Petitioner   :   Ms.Bhuvaneswari Calambakkam party-in-person


The petitioner has come up with this petition alleging that the order passed by this Court in CRP(PD) No.42 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013, has been violated by the respondent.

2.This petition has come up today for admission. The petitioner is present in person. I have heard her and I have also perused the records carefully. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3.The operative portion of the order in CRP(PD) No.42 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 reads as follows:-

  1. In the result, this Civil Petition Petition is partly

   allowed, in the following terms:-


   i.The litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- ordered by the

   lower Court is hereby confirmed.


   ii.So far as the interim maintenance is concerned, the

   order of the lower Court is modified and the second

   respondent is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-

   per month towards interim maintenance from 15.09.2010



   iii.The second respondent is directed to pay to the

   petitioner 50% of the entire arrears as directed in this

   order, on or before 03.04.2013.


   iv.The balance of arrears shall be paid by the second

   respondent to the petitioner on or before 03.05.2013. The

   trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case

   in O.P.No.3150 of 2010.

4.It is the contention of the petitioner that subsequent to the said order, the respondent has taken away the children by force. This according to the petitioner amounts to a contempt of Court.

5.In my considered opinion, it is not so. So far as the order in CRP(PD) No.42 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 is concerned, it relates to only payment of interim maintenance and also litigation expenses. The said order has got nothing to do with the custody of the children. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by this Court in CRP(PD) No.42 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 has been violated, has got no force.

6.The petitioner would submit that even the interim maintenance has also not been paid by the respondent and thus, the order passed by this Court has been violated. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7.If the interim maintenance has not been paid by the respondent, the remedy for the petitioner is to work out for recovery of the same. Mere failure of paying interim maintenance will not amount to contempt of Court. Thus, I do not find any merit in this petition.



8.In the result, the contempt petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.