The Delhi High Court has discharged the criminal contempt proceedings against a frustrated father who had used abusive language in the court and then walked away with a disobedient attitude towards his appearance in respect of separation from his son. The Court accepted his apology, but a fine of Rs. 25,000 was imposed, which was to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.

Context Of Incident And Ruling By The Court
The Court deemed the father’s acts as unintentional and in consideration of the fact that the incident occurred in a highly emotional state. The father had been in a matrimonial dispute with the separation of his son, which became the kindling for his outburst. Justices Pratibha M. Singh and Amit Sharma noted that though the father was acting inappropriately, he was in a situation where the frustration level was extreme and not during a conscious act to disregard the Court.

“There can be no doubt that a litigant cannot be allowed to indulge in contemptuous conduct against a Court,” the bench observed. However, the Court also took into consideration the father’s emotional distress and found he was not acting intending to block the course of justice.

Origin Of Contempt Proceedings
The contempt proceedings had originally been initiated when the family court, considering the conduct of the respondent father while the matter was pending before it, held him in contempt. The matter was thereafter placed before this court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, enabling such reference to be acted upon.

He contends that the family court, after taking cognizance of the matter, could refer it to the High Court and could not issue a show cause notice or draw a conclusion on the contempt. He thus submits that the power to deal with contempt, which the Court has, should be exercised with due circumspection, particularly taking into account the sensitive emotions involved in matrimonial disputes.

Court’s Compassionate Approach
The High Court of Delhi supported the version of argumentation presented by the father because the contemptuous act was committed in a highly emotive family environment. It found the frustration partial to the father to be temporary and not to show disrespect to the judiciary.

The power of contempt, especially criminal contempt, should be resorted to sparingly. The Court can be lenient and sympathetic to the circumstance surrounding the commission of the contempt, particularly when the contemnor shows repentance.

The father has indeed demonstrated genuine repentance and explained that the ground for his misconduct was the emotional uproar he felt. The decision of the Court thus underlines the interest of the latter in considering the emotional settings of legal disputes, and the role of mercy in court proceedings.