1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CCC NO 461 OF 2024 BETWEEN NISHA S KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS, DOOR NO.2-331/6A, NITHYANANDA NAGAR, MANGALORE SHELTERED/CORRESPONDENCE AT: MEGHAVARSHINI, NETHRAVATHI LAYOUT, CAPITANIO ROAD, MANGALORE. PRESENTLY CAMPING AT: 302, DECCAN CHAMBERS, 136 J.S.S. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 004 ...COMPLAINANT (BY SMT. NISHA S KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON ) AND 1 . SAILESH KUMAR AGED 55 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS, DOOR NO. 2-331/6A, NITHYANANDA NAGAR, MANGALORE. 2 2 . ANUPAM AGARWAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALURU. 3 . MS.NALINI CHIEF OFFICER KOTEKAR TOWN PANCHAYAT ULLAL TALUK, D.K, ACCUSED (BY SRI. VINAY N, ADVOCATE FOR A1, SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE FOR A3 ) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, BY THE PARTY-IN-PERSON/COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO VIEW OF WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE II JMFC COURT IN CRL. M.C. 99/2011 AND THE DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER PASSED IN MFA 4042/2022 ALONG WITH OTHER VIOLATIONS, THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INSTITUTE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED. DIRECT THE ULLAL POLICE STATION TO REGISTER AN FIR AND INVESTIGATE THE CRIME FOR VANDALIZING MY PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This contempt petition is initiated against the wilful disobedience of the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA.No.4197/2022 c/w. MFA.No.4042/2022 & MFA.No.967/2023, whereby the Co- ordinate Bench has passed the order as under: "The matter was called on 03.08.2023, thereafter it was adjourned to 10.08.2023 and on 10.08.2023, learned counsel for the appellant was directed to secure instructions as to whether he would not hinder the respondent from accessing and residing in the portion marked as "relocated house" in the sketch which is constructed on a property owned by the respondent. The matter was adjourned to today. Today when the matter was called out, learned counsel for the appellant initially expressed certain reluctance in view of the judgment and order of II Additional District and District Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.108/2022 filed against an order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 dated 04.07.2022 passed in M.C.No.99/2011. The fact that the respondent is the owner of the house is not in dispute. The fact that the premises where the factory is set up also belongs to the respondent is not in dispute. The fact that the appellant has created third party rights in the premises owned by the appellant is also not disputed and on account of 4 creation of third party rights, the appellant would contend that it would not be appropriate to permit that respondent to relocate and reside in the house built up in Sy.No.315/B2 and the appellate Court in an appeal instead of directing provision of accommodation, directs that she be given a suitable alternative accommodation. Nothing can be scarier than this, where a person who is provided protection in the shared household under the statute is now sought to be sent away from occupying her own place, we are unable to appreciate the order. It is apparent that the appellant is avoiding hearing in the matter. Hence, we direct the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, to provide protection to the respondent in the event she desires to reside in the property bearing Sy.No.315/1B2 and she be permitted access to the property through Gate No.3 or Gate No.4. The interim order to continue till the next date of hearing. A copy of this order forthwith communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru by e-mail. A carbon copy of this order be furnished to learned Additional Government Advocate to appropriately instruct the Mangaluru Police. List on 17.08.2023." 2. It is the contention of the complainant - party-in-person that though the Co-ordinate Bench has passed the specific order directing the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, to 5 provide protection to her in the event she desires to reside in the property bearing Sy.No.315/1B2 and she be permitted access to the property through gate No.3 or gate No.4, respondent No.1 disobeyed the aforesaid order by forcibly entering into her house and thereafter robbed the furniture. It is her further contention that respondent No.1 disconnected the water supply lines of the house. Further, the Commissioner of Police has not given proper protection to her to access the property through gate No.4. Hence, according to her, contempt of the aforesaid order has been committed by the respondents. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that, the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.08.2023 has been complied with in its letter and spirit and the complainant has been permitted to access the property through gate No.4. To that effect, he has filed a memo along with the rough sketch of the property which shows accessibility to the complainant to the property through gate no.4. 4. He further contended that the complainant is residing at Mumbai and respondent No.1 is absolutely not aware of the 6 allegation made by the complainant about the furniture and other materials being robbed from the house and also about the disconnection of water supply lines. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Town Panchayat submitted that the Panchayath has provided the water connection to the house of the complainant and the pipelines were intact till her house. 6. Accordingly, both the counsel contend that there is no contempt of the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and pray to close the contempt petition. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the complainant-party-in-person and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also perused the documents placed before us. 8. It could be gathered from records that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the aforesaid order by directing the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, to provide protection to the complainant who is respondent in MFA.No.4197/2022 & connected matters in the event she desires to reside in the 7 property bearing Sy.No.315/1B2 and she be permitted access to the said property through gate No.3 or gate No.4. 9. On perusal of the memo filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, it is clear that the complainant has been permitted access to the property through gate No.4. Even otherwise, this aspect is not seriously disputed by the complainant. Further, on perusal of compliance affidavit filed by respondent No.2 dated 01.07.2024, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru South Sub- Division has passed an order dated 28.06.2024 deputing the Police Officer at the residence of the complainant thereby giving protection round-the-clock to the complainant. To that effect, an affidavit was also filed along with the order of the Commissioner and the photographs which also clearly indicates that the complainant has been permitted access to the property through gate No.4 and has been given protection. 10. In such circumstances, the aforesaid interim arrangement made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been complied with by respondent No.1 and the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru. The other grievance of the complainant that the furniture was robbed from the house and water supply 8 has been disconnected cannot be dealt with in this contempt petition in view of limited scope of this proceeding. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the contempt petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped and the petition is closed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS