# Satyawan v. Krishna BahadurUpadhyay

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1037
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-09-08
- **Case number:** Contempt Appeal Defective No. 26 of 2003
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyawan-v-krishna-bahadurupadhyay-43340
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section 397/401-Criminal Revisiongiven custody of Muslim girl to her fathermedical certificate as well as statement
recorded before magistrate shows 18
years-according
to
school
certificate
minor-magistrate
given
preference
to
school certificate with a view of variation
of age about 2 years on medical certificate
custody
to
her
father-held-when
Nikahnama not disputed-girl willing to join
company of her husband-husband entitled
for custody-revision allowed.
Held: Para-15 & 16

## Text

3 All]
 Satyawan Vs. Krishna Bahadur Upadhyay
1037
age determined by CMO on the basis of
medical examination.
12.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid
discussion, the law and settled legal
proposition, we are of the view that the
order dated 24.11.2008, passed by learned
Single Judge is not sustainable in nature
and the inquiry report is liable to be set
aside.
13. Hence, the order dated 24.11.2008
is quashed and the enquiry report is hereby
set aside. The special appeal succeeds and is
allowed.
14. Respondents no. 2 to 5 are
directed to hold an inquiry afresh in the
light of the aforesaid discussion according
to law. There shall be no order as to cost.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Contempt Appeal Defective No. 26 of 2003
Satyawan
...Appellant
Versus
Krishna BahadurUpadhyay ..Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K.P. Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section 12Civil contempt punishment of Rs. 5000/-
fine with direction of deduction from salaryexcept fine of Rs. 2000/- and 6 month
maximum of punishment-realization of
damage without finding of guilt-heldunsustainable.
Held: Para-8
In the wake of the aforesaid facts, we do
not find any justification for imposition
of damages to be deducted from the
salary of the appellant without holding
the appellant to be guilty of having
committed the contempt. A prima facie
opinion is not an order of conviction on
satisfaction that the charge was proved.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. This contempt appeal has come
up after 12 years of its filing.
2. The appellant was the then
Regional Joint Director of Education, who
was directed to decide a rival dispute of a
Committee of Management vide judgment
of this Court dated 10th April, 2003.
3.
The officer appears to have
completed the hearing on 25th June, 2003
but orders were not delivered. When
Contempt Application No. 2970 of 2003
was filed, upon issuance of notices, the
order was passed by the officer on 4th
November, 2003. When the contempt
application came up for final hearing, a
learned Single Judge after having noticed
the above facts, observed that prima facie a
contempt has been committed by not strictly
obeying with the order dated 10th April,
2003. However, the court instead of
punishing the appellant under section 12 of
the 1971 Act disposed of the contempt
petition by directing that he will deposit Rs.
5,000/- as damages, and the Director of
Education was further directed to deduct the
aforesaid amount from the salary of the
appellant.
4. The said judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 13.11.2003 is under
appeal before us.
1038
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. The Division Bench that
entertained this appeal, admitted the same
and stayed the operation of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge.
6.
Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 read with the other
provisions thereof makes a provision for
punishment after holding a contemnor guilty
of charges and provides for a maximum
punishment by way of imprisonment for six
months and in addition thereto a fine of Rs.
2,000/-. There is no other mode of
punishment or statutory power conferred on
the court so as to impose damages on a prima
facie finding of guilt.
7. The learned Single Judge did not
finally hold the appellant to be guilty nor
was the appellant punished, as is evident
from a perusal of the judgment itself.
8.
In the wake of the aforesaid facts,
we do not find any justification for
imposition of damages to be deducted from
the salary of the appellant without holding
the appellant to be guilty of having
committed the contempt. A prima facie
opinion is not an order of conviction on
satisfaction that the charge was proved.
9. Consequently, we set aside the
said direction of imposition of Rs. 5,000/-
damages and deduction of salary as
directed by the learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal is allowed on the
aforesaid terms.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA, J.
Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2015
Furkan
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, Sri Nirvikar
Gupta
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey
Cr.P.C.-Section 397/401-Criminal Revisiongiven custody of Muslim girl to her fathermedical certificate as well as statement
recorded before magistrate shows 18
years-according
to
school
certificate
minor-magistrate
given
preference
to
school certificate with a view of variation
of age about 2 years on medical certificate
custody
to
her
father-held-when
Nikahnama not disputed-girl willing to join
company of her husband-husband entitled
for custody-revision allowed.
Held: Para-15 & 16
15.
In view of the above, it is apparent
that opinion of the Doctor in respect of
age should have been given preference.
Moreover when girl was expressing
apprehension, Magistrate should have
been careful in sending her with father.
As
stated
above,
marriage
i.e.
nikahnama
is
not
disputed.
Consequently, as wife, she is ready to
live with her husband, husband is
entitled to have her custody.
16. It is settled law that against the
wishes, even minor cannot be sent to
Nari Niketan and husband being natural
guardian is entitled to custody of wife.
Case Law discussed:
[2005 Law Suit (SC) 1541]; Habeas Corpus
Writ Petition No. 10180 of 2012; AIR 1982 SC
1297; [2014 (2) All. Cr.J. 664]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar
Saxena, J.)