Special Appeal Not Maintainable Where Single Judge Refuses To Initiate Contempt Without Examining Merits: Allahabad High Court

The Court noted that it is permissible when the Contempt Court oversteps its limited jurisdiction by deciding on substantive merits of the original dispute.

Update: 2026-05-01 14:30 GMT

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952, cannot be maintained against an order where a Single Judge declines to initiate contempt proceedings without delving into the merits of the dispute.

The Court noted that such appeals are legally permissible only in exceptional circumstances, specifically when the Contempt Court oversteps its limited jurisdiction by deciding on the substantive merits of the original dispute rather than focusing strictly on whether contemptuous conduct occurred.

Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed, “…one may come to an indubitable finding that a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 is only maintainable if the learned Single Judge has overstepped its jurisdiction and jumped into deciding on merits of the earlier order. A special appeal against an order of contempt Court would not be maintainable if the learned Single Judge has declined to initiate the contempt proceeding without delving into the merits of the dispute”.

Advocate Priyanka Singh appeared for the appellant and Advocate Pranshu Agrawal appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, pursuant to a matrimonial dispute where the respondent, a judicial officer in the Bihar Judiciary, allegedly filed a false Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in maintenance proceedings. The appellant contended that the respondent marked her income and assets as "N/A" despite being a serving judge and owning a luxury vehicle.

Consequently, the appellant initiated perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (now Section 379 BNSS) and simultaneously filed a contempt application, citing the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The Single Judge Bench disposed of the contempt application on August 13, 2024, without recording a finding on the contempt itself. Instead, the Judge directed the appellant to pursue the pending application in the trial court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The appellant challenged this disposal via the present Special Appeal, arguing that the Single Judge failed to decide the core issue of whether contempt was made out.

The Bench observed that the Single Judge’s observation regarding multiple proceedings did not touch the merits of the original maintenance dispute. The Court clarified that while simultaneous proceedings under the BNSS and Contempt Act are permissible, courts are not bound to initiate action under both provisions.

“An appeal is a creation of statute and once the legislature in its wisdom has chosen not to provide for any remedy of appeal against an order passed, whereby the contempt court has declined to initiate contempt proceeding, then appeal cannot be construed to be maintainable as the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are self-contained. Right of appeal has been conferred only on the contemnor under Section 19 of the Act who has been punished under the Act and in rest of the contingency there is no remedy of appeal. If there is no provision of appeal in the statute, one cannot take aid of any other provisions as such of the Rules as quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum, that is, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly”, the Bench noted.

Ultimately, the Court held that the Special Appeal was not maintainable as the Single Judge Bench had not overstepped its jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed without demur.