IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2707 OF 2023
Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act,1971 lo punish the respondents herein for wilfully and violating the Orders of the High Court dated 09.05.2022 passed in l.A.No. 323 of 2022 in O.S.No. 141 2022.
Between:
Gundabathini Jhansitaxmi W/o. Late Raghava Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ
Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 2-1-1691311 , Near Polytechnic College, Thallagadda,Suryapet Town and District.
Presently Rl/o. Miyapur, Alwyn colony, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad….PETITIONER
AND
1. Lachumalla Ramanamma Wo. Narayana, Age 50 years, Occ Household,
2. Lachumalla Sushma, W/o. Balaramakrishna, Age 29 years, Occ Household,
3. Lachumalla Srujana, D/o. Narayana, Age 24 years, Occ Student,
All R/o. H. No. 1-7-175, First Floor, Church Compound, Suryapet Town and District 508213 ..RESPONDENTS/CONTEM NORS
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar
Counsel forthe Respondents R1 to R3: Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
ORDER:
Heard the arguments of both sides.
2. This contempt case is filed by the petitioner against the respondents under contempt of Courts Act as they violated the orders of the Court in I.A.No.323 of 2022 in O.S.No. l4l of 2022 dated 09.05.2022.
3. O.S.No.l4l ol’2022 is filed by petitioner against respondents for perpetual injunction. During the pendency ol the suit, petitioner also filed I.A.No.323 of 2022 for. ad-interim injunction restraining respondents from interfering with possession of the petitioner regarding suit schedule property. The trial Court granted ad-interim injunction on 09.05.2022 till 08.06.2022. The written statement was filed by the defendants in the said suit on 25.09.2022.
4. I-earned counsel for the respondents stated that he filed counter, but he could not file the same before this Court. As per the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the trial Court. exparte injunction order was extended till l6.l 1.202i.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that respondent No.2/daughter-in-law and her mother and sister i.e., respondent Nos. l and 3 were residing in petitioners house without her consent and petitioner filed photographs to that effect. There is strained relationship between the respondent No.2 and petitioner’s son and respondent No.2 filed criminal cases, DVC and petitioner’s son also filed divorce O.P against respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is also having minor child who was born on 15. 10.2002 I aged about 3 years as on today. He mainly contended that there is willful violation and disobedience of the injunction order dated Og.O5.20ZZ.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents admitted that respondent No.2 is residing at petitioner’s house and further stated that as she has filed complaint against her husband, she has no other way but to stay in petitioner’s house along with the minor child and he further stated that respondent Nos. l and i carne to see the respondent No.2, but they were not residing in the said house. Respondent No.2 ought to have resided in her mother’s house along with her sister.
7. Admittedly, the property is in the name of the petitioner/mother-in-law and she filed suit for injunction. During the pendency of the suit, she obtained ad-interim injunction order. The respondent No.2 herein ought to have filed counter and made efforts to vacate the said order, but she failed to do so. She resided in the house of petitioner without her consent and she violated the same willfully and it amounts to disobedience of the orders of the Court.
Therefore. this Court finds that as per the Section l0 of the Courts Act. 191 l. it is just and reasonable to punish respondent No.2/contemnor No.2
8. In the result, the Contempt Case is partly allowed sentencing the respondent No.2 herein to imprisonment for a term ol l5 days and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Regarding respondent Nos. l and 3, it is stated that they came only to visit respondent No.2 and they are not residing in the petitioner’s house and it was not established by the petitioner that they are also residing in the petitioner’s house along with respondent No.2 as such the case against them is dismissed..
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending shall stand closed
Sd/.
HIGH COURT
DATED: 11 09 2024
ORDER CC.No.2707 ot 2023
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE