'Was Frustrated Over Separation With Son': Delhi HC Drops Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Father For Using Abusive Language In Court

The Delhi High Court dropped the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against a father who had used abusive language in the Court and walked away, refusing to appear before the Court as he was upset and frustrated after his son was separated from him.

The Court accepted the father's/ contemnor's apology subject to the condition that he shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, within one week.

The Court found that the contemnor/father's act was unintentional as the entire incident appeared to have taken place in a circumstance of frustration and amid a matrimonial spat with his wife where his son was separated from him.

“There can be no doubt that a litigant cannot be allowed to indulge in contemptuous conduct against a Court. However, a perusal of the affidavit filed shows that the said conduct occurred at a time when the son of the Contemnor was being separated from him. Such moments could be traumatic and emotional moments for a father that it is believable that he may have lost control and misbehaved. The contemnor clearly did not intend to cause disrespect or impede the administration of justice.”, the bench comprising Justices Pratibha M. Singh and Amit Sharma observed.

The contempt proceedings were initiated against the contemnor/father by the family court because the alleged contemptuous act was committed before the family court. The family court held that the contemnor had committed contempt. Thereupon a reference was made (not by the family court) under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ("Act") to the High Court, where the case was registered as suo moto against the contemnor.

As per Section 15(2) of the Act, in case of criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General.

It was contended by the contemnor that at best the family court could have made reference to the High Court and could not have issued show cause notice and come to any conclusion that the Contemnor had in fact committed contempt.

Further, it was urged by the contemnor that the power of Courts in case of contempt ought to be exercised sparingly and the circumstances in which the Contemnor has committed contemptuous acts have to be considered where the circumstances of heightened emotions, anger or frustration of the Contemnor in a matrimonial dispute would also deserve to be considered.

Acceding to the contemnor's contention, the court observed that he didn't have the intention to disrespect the Court as the entire incident occurred in a moment of anger and frustration which the contemnor had admitted.

“Having regard to the fact that the conduct of the Contemnor though completely unbecoming, appears to have taken place in a circumstance of frustration and in the midst of a matrimonial spat with his wife where his son's custody was also involved, this Court is of the opinion that the Contemnor may not have had any intention to show disrespect to the Court. The Contemnor, has admitted that in a moment of anger and frustration, had misbehaved with the ld. Family Court.”, the court observed.

“The power of contempt, specifically criminal contempt, ought to be exercised sparingly as the Court is not personally involved in such matters and can be compassionate and empathetic to such circumstances, especially when the Contemnor is expressing remorse.”, the court added.

The Court thus, accepted the apology of the contemnor and dropped the discharged the contemnor.

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Adv. Amicus Curiae & Mr. Teeksh Singhal, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr Anubhav Mehrotra, Advocate along with Respondent in person.

Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Versus ABHINAV KATHURIA, CONT.CAS. (CRL) 8/2024

Click here to read/download the judgment