1 2025:CGHC:5438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 57 of 2025 1 - Smt Hanit Kaur Khalsa W/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 38 Years Occupation House Wife R/o Darogapara Raigarh Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G. 2 - Ravlin Khalsa D/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 20 Years R/o Darogapara Raigarh Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Minor Bhavnit Khalsa D/o Parvinder Singh Khalsa Aged About 17 Years Applicant No. 3 Is Minor Impleaded Through Mother Hanit Kaur Khalsa R/o Darogapara Raigarh Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Prabodh Toppo, Judge Family Court Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Contemnor) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Syed Mohd. Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Not noticed (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. The applicants have preferred this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance of Order dated 14.10.2024 passed in CRR No.596/2024, whereby this Court has passed following order in aforesaid criminal revision, which reads as under:- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.02.04 16:47:26 +0530 2 “Considering the submission, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/- before the Family Court within 3 weeks from today. If the amount is deposited, the interim order passed by this Court will be effective till the next date of hearing otherwise it will lose its significance without reference to the bench. List this case on 10th December, 2024.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the applicants filed application for grant of maintenance before Family Court, Raigarh, whereby the learned Family Court has granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to applicant No.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- each to applicants 2 & 3 (daughters), with effect from the date of filing of the aforesaid application i.e. 21.8.2018. The total sum of maintenance till 14.10.24 amounts to approximately Rs.15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, non-applicant/husband filed revision before High Court bearing CRR No.596/2024, whereby the learned Singh Bench has directed to the husband to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- before the Family Court within three weeks, i.e. by 04.11.2024, failing which, the interim order passed by the High Court would lose its significance. However, the husband has not complied with aforesaid order. Against which, the applicant/wife filed application before the Family Court for issuance of warrant of arrest against the husband. The learned Family Court vide order dated 07.11.2024 has rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that criminal revision filed by the husband is pending before the High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is specific direction from the High Court to the husband to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- within three weeks, he failed to comply the same. Despite that, the learned Family Court has not issued warrant of arrest against the husband, which is willful 3 disobedience of order of this Court, hence, this petition. 5. Since execution proceedings in pursuance of order of maintenance granted in favour of the applicants is pending therefore, if there is any violation of order dated 14.10.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No.596/2024, then the applicants may take recourse to law from concerned executing Court. 6. On this, learned counsel for the applicants draw attention of the Court on Order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Execution Case No.29/2024, wherein the learned Family Court has observed that since the case is pending before High Court, therefore, issuance of arrest warrant is not appropriate. This observation of the Executing court is not found to be proper because, since conditional stay order passed by the High Court has not been complied with by the husband, then stay granted in his favour is not effective and only because he filed revision petition before the High Court, does not preclude the Executing Court to take action against the husband in accordance with law. Further, If order dated 14.10.2024 has not been complied with by the husband and the Executing Court declined vide impugned order to issue arrest warrant against the husband, then remedy available to the applicants is to challenge that impugned order dated 07.11.2024 by filing appropriate petition before the High Court. Without availing such remedy, the applicants have filed instant petition for initiating contempt proceedings, which is not appropriate and the same is accordingly dropped. 7. In view of the above, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, liberty is left with the applicants to take recourse to law. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini