- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB CCC No. 80 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.80 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. Y. M. SUMATHI @ HEMAVATHI W/O. LATE Y. M. SHIVANANDA 51 YEARS D/O. SRI B. KOTRESHI D. NO.5/144-32, BY PASS ROAD VIJAYANAGAR BADAVANI, HUVINAHADAGALI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT KRCC SOCIETY BEHIND POST OFFICE, MAIN ROAD HOOVINA HADAGALI BELLARY - 583 219. 2. KUM. SHWETHA D/O. LATE Y. M. SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT KRCC SOCIETY BEHIND POST OFFICE MAIN ROAD, HOOVINA HADAGALI BELLARY - 583 219. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI ALFRED AARON JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, SUNDARSWAMY AND RAMDAS, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB CCC No. 80 of 2023 AND: SRI Y. M. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. MOTHI DODDAPPA AGED 97 YEARS LANDLORD 283/3, OPP. VISHWESWARAYYA PARK 4TH MAIN, P. J. EXTENSION DAVANAGERE - 2 …ACCUSED (BY SRI G. B. NANDISH GOWDA FOR; SRI R. B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATES) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACTS, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS TO TAKE CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS DATED 12.04.2010 AND 01.03.2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON MISC NO.2547/2010 AND I.A.NO.2/2013 RESPECTIVELY IN R.F.A. NO.232/2010 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB CCC No. 80 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) Sri Alfred Aaron Joseph representing Sri Pradeep S. Sawkar, counsel for the complainants seeks for short accommodation on the premise that the arguing counsel on record is not feeling well. 2. This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the complainants in respect of the orders dated 12.04.2010 and 01.03.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Misc.No.2547/2010 and I.A.No.2/2013, respectively in RFA No.232/2010, seeking for a direction against respondent No.1/accused herein, to pay maintenance to the appellants/complainants at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel Sri G. B. Nandish Gowda and Sri R. B. Sadashivappa appear on behalf of respondent No.1/accused. 4. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to refer to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wherein, the said provision of law reveals as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB CCC No. 80 of 2023 "20. Limitation for actions for contempt:- No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either or its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged have been committed." 5. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. M.LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein, in paragraph No.53 of the said judgment, it is revealed as under: "53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the High Court." 6. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and also the fact this contempt proceeding has been initiated by the complainants to take contempt action against - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3040-DB CCC No. 80 of 2023 respondent No.1/accused and the provisions of Section 2(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the fact that there is an interim order passed in RFA No.232/2010, this contempt proceedings do not survive for consideration and consequently, the same is hereby dropped even on the limitation point also. 7. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2023 stands dismissed even on merits. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8