1 2025:CGHC:14723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 19.02.2025 Order Delivered on 27.03.2025 CONT No. 223 of 2025 Smt. Rashmita Patel D/o Shri Visikesan Patel Aged About 33 Years W/o Vivekanand Patel, Caste - Mali, R/o Village Remta (Barpali) Distt. Bargarh Orissa. At Present- C/o Hemant Patel S/o Kshir Sagar Patel R/o Malipara, Boirdadar Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Shri Prabodh Toppo Judge, Family Court Raigarh Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr.K.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent : None --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge CAV Order 1. The present contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order of this Court dated 03.12.2024 passed in WP227 No. 984 of 2024 by this Court. Vide order dated 03.12.2024, this Court has passed the following order/direction:- “8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and, the order impugned dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P/1), passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh is hereby set aside and, the application dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P/2), filed by the petitioner/wife under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed and the rest of the witnesses, who were appeared before the concerned Vigilance Officer are permitted to be examined by the concerned Trial Court. ” 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits that notice were issued to witness no. 1, 2 and 3 but summons/notice was not issued to witness no. 8, even after a clear direction issued by this Court for issuing summons/notice. Therefore, the respondent has not fully complied the order passed by this court and passed the order in a contemptuous manner. The contemnor/respondent has willfully disobeyed and over looked the spirit of order passed by this court vide its order dated 03.12.2024 and tried to find out the default and flaw in the order passed. Hence, he prays that an appropriate order/direction may be given for complying the order passed by this court to the concerned respondent in the interest of justice. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as other documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 4. As per para 06 of Enquiry Report, it has been held as under:- 06. Shri Jaideep Vijay Nimonkar (EW 08) has said that on the next date of filing, case was listed on 09.05.2017. On that day Smt. Rasmita Patel was not present and the order sheet was recorded two times and on such day her absence was mentioned, Shri Nimonkar and Shri Sandeep Kumar Rathore (EW -06) had also said that when any party is coming late after the recording of order sheet, their presence is later recorded by mentioning such fact, in the order sheet. Shri Rathore, Reader has failed to explain that when Rasmita was not present on that day, when and how such signature were made and who put the signature of Rasmita Patel. 5. On bare perusal of the Enquiry Report place on record this court has found that Presiding Officer Mr. Jaideep Vijay Nimonkar has been examined as EW-08 by the Registrar Vigilance. Therefore, it is crystal clear that this court has allowed the application filed by the wife/petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.(Annexure P/2) has been allowed and was 3 ordered that the rest of the witnesses, who appeared before the concerned Vigilance Officer, are permitted to be examined by the concerned Trial court. Hence, the permission has already been granted by this Court. However, as per (Annexure C/4) Learned Principal Judge has ordered that Presiding Officer, Shri Jaideep Vijay Nimonkar, Judge has also been requested to be summoned for evidence by the petitioner in her application. Since there is no dispute regarding the signature or decision of the presiding officer in the case, nor has the petitioner made any allegation in her plaint in this regard. In the case under consideration, it has to be seen whether the petitioner was present in the divorce case or not. In such a situation, it does not seem necessary to summon the then presiding officer for evidence. 6. Prima facie shows that it is a misinterpreted order of this court, it is not a willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. It is a judicial order passed by the concerned Judge of the Family court. Therefore, looking to the order passed by this court in WP227 No. 984 of 2024 passed on 03.12.2024, learned Judge of Family Court directed to comply the order of this Court as per para 8 of the said order, it is pertinent that the said order has been complied with. There is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this court on the part of the respondent. 7. Subsequently, this contempt petition is closed against the respondent and is accordingly disposed of. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge