- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB CCC No. 510 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.510 OF 2023 BETWEEN: ROSHINI JEANNE MIRANDA S/O. ENGINEER GERAD VENANTIUS MIRANDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT A-101, SALARPURIA SATTVA ASPIRE NEXT TO UNITED PUBLIC SCHOOL CHIKKAGUBBI, HENNUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 077. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: ANDREW PRADEEP RAJ S/O. MR. MICHAEL RAJ KETCHAGNATHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT 35A HIGH STREET, HEMEL, HEMPSTEAD HP 1 3AA, ENGLAND UNITED KINGDOM. …ACCUSED (BY SMT. SREEJAYA N. V., ADVOCATE, FOR SMT. LATHA SHETTY) * * * THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR HIS DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN M.C. NO.2586 OF 2020, AND ETC. THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB CCC No. 510 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This contempt proceedings has been initiated by the complainant under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (for short, 'Act') read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the accused for his disobedience of the order dated 5-12-2020 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Matrimonial Case No.2586 of 2020 and the orders dated 13-1-2023, 23-1-2023 and 15-2-2023 passed by the III Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru, in Execution No.81 of 2022. 2. Smt. Sreejaya N.V., learned counsel representing Smt. Latha Shetty, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there is no disobedience of the orders passed by the Family Court, and the proceedings in Execution No.81 of 2022 are pending for adjudication before the decree holder and the judgment debtor. She further submits that the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable as there is delay in initiation of the contempt proceedings. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB CCC No. 510 of 2023 3. In this contempt proceedings, I.A. No.1 of 2023 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the contempt petition. 4. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the accused, it is relevant to refer Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: "20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." 5. Further, keeping in view the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. TIRUPATHI RAO v. M. LINGAMAIAH AND OTHERS reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764, wherein at paragraph No.53, it has observed 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6-DB CCC No. 510 of 2023 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 Section 20 of the Act and so also, the reliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, there is no substance to consider I.A. No.1 of 2023 for condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the contempt petition. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2023 is dismissed. Even on merits, there is no substance to consider this contempt petition as it is punitive in nature. Consequently, this contempt petition is hereby closed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18