Delhi High Court
Unknown vs Farah Khatoon on 20 December, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
Reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the Respondent. In the entire reply we have noticed that not even a single word expressing remorse of her contumacious conduct as reflected in the order dated 27th November 2013. Learned counsel for the contemnor - Farah Khatoon requested for a pass over so that respondent can file a fresh affidavit to express her unqualified apology for her conduct during the course of hearing of the main petition on proceedings of 27th November 2013. The contemnor - Farah Khatoon is also present in court.
In the additional reply, Respondent has stated that she came in contact with the petitioner while working as teachers in MCD School, Delhi and during that period the petitioner had given a marriage proposal which was initially refused by the respondent as she belonged to muslim religion but later after strong persuasion of the petitioner - Rakesh, she became ready to marry him but subject to the condition they will not consummate their marriage until and unless petitioner - Rakesh persuade her parents to this marriage. In the reply, she has admitted that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised on 9th April 2012 and the same was also registered with the Registrar of Marriages on 30th April 2012. It is further stated that after the said marriage, the petitioner did not make any sincere efforts to persuade her parents or to care for the said marriage. It is also stated that the petitioner in his own manner and without intimation to the contemnor, flashed the information of their marriage to her parents and other family members and as a result of which the Respondent came under lot of social pressure and it is because of such social pressure and she being not well conversant with the law and legal procedures and without the aid and advise of any legal expertise made a false statement before the court denying the factum of marriage and its registration as well, although the documents to this effect were duly placed on record by the petitioner. It is further stated that the Respondent has not made the false statement before this court intentionally or deliberately or with ulterior motives as she was under a great traumatic state under pressure from her parents and the relatives to deny the said marriage with the petitioner, who does not belong to her religion. Respondent has also expressed her unqualified apology for her such contumacious conduct in the court. The respondent is also present in court and she has pleaded for showing leniency in the light of the facts explained by her in her additional reply/affidavit.
We have heard learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel (Cri.) for State and counsel representing the contemnor.
As was observed by us in order dated 27th November 2013 the Respondent was repeatedly asked not to tell lie before the court and truthfully state the correct facts. Father of the Respondent was also present alongwith her. The marriage certificate as issued by the Registrar of Marriages, the photographs showing the solemnisation of the marriage with the petitioner and a conversion certificate from Muslim to Hindu were shown to her but after having seen the documents she had stated that all these documents have been fabricated by the petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner stated that all the documents are genuine and the Respondent has married the petitioner according to Hindu Rights after converting herself into Hindu religion.
Taking into consideration the said conflicting stands taken by both the parties, statements of both the parties were recorded by the court and in their court depositions both the parties remained stuck to their respective stands. Because of such conflicting stands taken by both the parties and with a view to ascertain the correct facts, the court directed the Crime Branch of Delhi Police to hold a preliminary inquiry and to submit a report within a period of two months. It is thereafter, the Respondent had moved an application vide Crl. M.A. No. 18508/2013 seeking unconditional apology for her taking false stand before the court of law. In the light of the said admissions made by the Respondent in the said application, contempt proceedings were ordered to be initiated against her and it is pursuant thereto the Respondent has filed her both replies.
We are not prepared to accept the plea raised by the counsel representing the Respondent in the contempt proceedings that the Respondent is not well versed with the law and relevant procedure of the court because of her appearing in court for the first time and it was due to social pressure, she took false stands of denying the marriage with the petitioner. The Respondent is an educated girl and employed as a teacher in MCD School i.e. Marginal Bandh, Old II, Selampur, Delhi, therefore we cannot believe that the lady who is employed as a teacher at least is not aware of the fact that she has to be truthful before the Court of Law even though unrepresented by a lawyer or under social pressure. The entire conduct of the Respondent is contumacious as in the face of the court she kept telling lies after lies and also she had the audacity to take a false stand when her statement was recorded in court on oath. The conduct of the Respondent is unpardonable. The Respondent is thus held guilty of committing the contempt of court in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
With regard to the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration the unqualified apology tendered by her and the other reasons given by her in the said replies, we impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- on the Respondent which amount shall be deposited by the Respondent with "Mahatma Gandhi Trust" within a period of one week. Respondent is further directed to repent her sin by offering prayers at Rajghat i.e. Samadhi of father of the nation who is worshiped because of his cherished principles of truth and non-violence from 21st December 2013 and shall sit there for at least four hours a day for a period of one week. The area Police Station shall monitor that she sits there and offers her prayers in silence to feel remorseful about her such conduct.
With aforesaid directions, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be given Dasti under signatures of court master. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
INDERMEET KAUR, J
DECEMBER 20, 2013
pkb
No comments:
Post a Comment