The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) has held that a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is not maintainable against an order of a Contempt Court that declines to initiate contempt proceedings without delving into the merits of the dispute. A Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary clarified that such an intra-court appeal can only be maintained if the Contempt Court oversteps its jurisdiction by adjudicating substantive issues of the original case.
Background
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute between Saurav Raj (the appellant) and Sonakshi Verma (the respondent). Following their marriage in February 2021, the respondent filed a maintenance application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In those proceedings, the respondent filed an Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities (A.O.A.) in June 2022.
The appellant alleged that the respondent, a serving judicial officer in Bihar, deliberately filed a false affidavit by stating “N/A” for income and assets. He initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (now Section 379 BNSS) before the trial court and filed a Contempt Application before the High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha.
On August 13, 2024, a learned Single Judge disposed of the contempt application, observing that multiple proceedings on the same subject should not be permitted as the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application was already pending. The appellant challenged this disposal via the present Special Appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the Single Judge failed to decide if contempt was prima facie made out. Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, the appellant contended that “there is no bar against proceeding simultaneously under Section 379 of BNSS and Contempt of Court.” He further argued that by directing him to pursue the lower court remedy, the Single Judge “exceeded the bounds of contempt jurisdiction,” making the Special Appeal maintainable.
The respondent countered that the appeal was not maintainable as the Single Judge did not discuss the merits of the original controversy. Regarding the affidavit, she claimed the “N/A” entry was an “inadvertent slip of the pen” and a “human error” without mens rea, noting she had declared her occupation as a ‘Civil Judge’ elsewhere in the same proceedings. She further emphasized that under the proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court is barred from taking cognizance if the act constitutes a specific offence under the IPC.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench focused on the maintainability of the Special Appeal. It referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunni Lal Nanda, which established that an order declining to initiate contempt proceedings is generally not appealable unless the High Court “decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute.”
The Bench observed:
“The term ‘merit’ in this context refers to the substantive issues of the original case that led to the contempt proceedings. It encompasses the core legal and factual questions that were or are being contested in the original litigation.”
The Court noted that the Single Judge’s observation regarding “multiplicity of proceedings” was a procedural directive to avoid parallel litigation and did not touch upon the substantive merits of the matrimonial or maintenance dispute.
Addressing the statutory nature of appeals, the Court stated:
“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… what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
The Bench also clarified that while simultaneous proceedings are legally possible, courts are not mandated to initiate action under both provisions in every instance.
Decision
The Court concluded that the Special Appeal was not maintainable as the learned Single Judge did not overstep his jurisdiction or decide on the merits of the earlier order.
“We unhesitatingly hold that the present special appeal/intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed without demur.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Saurav Raj v. Sonakshi Verma
Case No.: SPECIAL APPEAL No. 84 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Date: April 29, 2026
