- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4741-DB CCC No. 910 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH 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. 910 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED WAHEED AHMED S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DEJA APARTMENTS FLAT NO.16, DOOR NO. 428/429 1st MAIN AREKERE, LAKSHMI LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 076. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED ZULFIKHAR AHAMED - ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. TASMEEM WAHEED AHMED W/O MOHAMMED WAHEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 441, 14th CROSS LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU 560 030. …ACCUSED (BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE - ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYED THE ORDERS OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 28.09.2022 IN MFA NO.2812/2022 C/W MFA NO.2795/2022 AND MFA NO.2818/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4741-DB CCC No. 910 of 2023 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) Learned counsel Sri Mohamed Zulfikhar Ahamed for the complainant is present before the Court physically inclusive of learned counsel Sri Parameshwar N Hegde for the respondent. 2. This contempt proceeding is initiated by the complainant against the respondent for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in MFA No.2812/2022 c/w MFA No.2795/2022 and MFA No.2818/2022 dated 28.09.2022. In para 9 of the judgment, the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement i.e., settlement arrived at between the parties before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre, Bengaluru. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4741-DB CCC No. 910 of 2023 3. However, keeping in view Section 2(b) inclusive of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Tirupati Rao vs. Lingamaiah reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 wherein in paragraph 52 it is observed as under: ‘52. Therefore, it would be correct to state that the court’s power when dealing with the question of contempt, in a sense, is discretionary. It cannot be gainsaid that even in cases where disobedience of the order of the court is not disputed, the court may also accept a defence, if raised, of impossibility to comply with an order and come to the conclusion that since it is impossible to enforce its order, action to punish may not be initiated. That apart, refusal may be justified by grave concerns of public policy. Much would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the contempt under enquiry, etc., which would enable the court to exercise its discretion either way. However, to demonstrate his bona fide, the contemnor ought to bring any valid defence for his disability to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4741-DB CCC No. 910 of 2023 comply with the court’s direction to its notice without wasting any time. Whatever be the position before it, nothing stands in the way of the high court from passing an order to ensure that nothing impedes the course of justice.’ 4. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and that the dispute is between the parties who are no other than spouses, this contempt proceedings does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. However, in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, liberty as sought for is granted. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE SD/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB