AD-02 Ct No.16 14.08.2026 TN CRC 14 of 2026 in FAT 250 of 2019 IA No: CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 7811 of 2019) Smt. Rakhi Das (Biswas) Vs. Samit Das Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Abhirup Halder, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya ….. for the petitioner Mr. Shubham Gupta, Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi, Ms. Manika Sarkar .....for the contemnor 1. The contemnor personally appears in Court along with his counsel. 2. We note from our earlier order dated July 10, 2026 that, apart from having squarely violated the order dated April 01, 2025, whereby the contemnor was directed to pay monthly alimony of Rs.60,000/-as a composite amount for maintenance of his wife and son, by paying only Rs. 40,000/- per month, the contemnor did not also pay litigation costs till day before yesterday, as well as flouted the direction to pay arrears of alimony for more than a year. 3. Not stopping there, as we had recorded in our order dated July 10, 2026, the contemnor had the audacity to make a patently false statement in his affidavit-in- opposition to the contempt application, alleging that 2 although he had been paying only Rs.40,000/- each month to the petitioner/wife, the contemnor had been allegedly paying Rs.20,000/- separately to his minor son. 4. During arguments, an “affidavit for unconditional” (apology) is filed on behalf of the contemnor. Learned counsel appearing for the contemnor submits that the contemnor tenders “unqualified apology” for having violated the order of the Court and submits that the contemnor is willing to clear off the entire dues of the petitioner within an outer limit of 20 days from date. 5. However, even in the affidavit, which is filed today and kept on record, we do not find a single line of plausible explanation having been given as to why the contemnor made the patently incorrect statement in his affidavit-in-opposition to the contempt application to the effect that he was paying Rs.20,000/- per month separately to the minor son. Apart from the separate payment to the minor son, who is only about 14-years-old and is in custody of the petitioner/mother, being absurd and not credible, not a single scrap of paper has been furnished to substantiate such claim. Rather, when confronted with the said issue today, the contemnor admits through counsel that the said statement was incorrect and he has not made any such payment to his son. Thus, not only did the contemnor not comply with the order of this Court for over a year from the date of the order, but also tried to deliberately mislead the Court 3 into believing that he had been complying with the order. 6. In the teeth of the contempt Rule, the contemnor has paid the litigation costs only, that too, day before yesterday, that is, on August 12, 2026, evidently to save himself from the rigours of contempt. 7. We also take note of the fact that previously, during the hearing of the alimony application, costs had to be imposed on the contemnor in view of the contemnor having repeatedly sought adjournment to file his affidavit of assets. Even in the affidavit of assets, as we noted in the order under contempt, several components were suppressed by the contemnor, trying to cover up his actual income before the Court. 8. That apart, on a still earlier occasion, a different coordinate Bench had also had to impose costs on the contemnor for having flouted a previous direction of payment of an ad hoc amount to the petitioner/wife. 9. Taking into consideration such repeated and deliberate acts of contempt on the part of the contemnor and the obvious fact that the contemnor did not care in the least for the dignity of the Court in having made a deliberately false statement of having paid Rs.20,000/- per month separately to his minor son, which is admittedly an incorrect statement and aggravates the contumacious conduct of the contemnor, we find the so-called apology sought to be offered by the affidavit filed today to be only an 4 eyewash and a lip-service, not worth the paper it is printed on. 10. Hence, we categorically refuse to accept such purported apology which, in the garb of an apology, is a lame excuse to avoid the punishment for contempt. 11. If such recalcitrant litigants are let free without any penal action for such aggravated contempt, a wrong message will go to law-abiding citizens, since such abidance by the law would lose meaning if people are permitted to flout the directions of the Court at the drop of a hat and to merely tender an apology and let go scot-free. 12. Hence, taking into account such repeated and aggravated acts of contempt on the part of the contemnor, the Rule, bearing CRC 14 of 2026, is made absolute by directing the contemnor to be taken into custody. The contemnor shall be committed to civil imprisonment for the period of a week starting from today. 13. The Deputy Sheriff of this Court shall take custody of the contemnor at the earliest in order to implement the above direction. 14. Necessary subsistence allowance shall be paid by the petitioner, upon making an enquiry as to the quantum of the same from the office of the Deputy Sheriff, within 48 hours. 15. The parties shall act on this order dictated in open Court for the purpose of compliance. 5 16. We make it abundantly clear that irrespective of this order, it will be open to the petitioner to separately seek implementation of the order under contempt by way of appropriate mode, be it attachment and sale of the contemnor’s assets, separate imprisonment over and above that directed by this order, or otherwise as permissible in law for the implementation of such order. 17. Nothing in the present direction shall come in the way of such separate application being made and decided independently and on its own merits. If such an application is made, a copy thereof shall be served on the learned Advocate for the contemnor in advance. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)