interim injuction

 the concept of admissibility is contigent upon relevancy.it is to be noted that always FACTS are relevant and EVIDENCE upon such facts are admissible.every fact which has been declared to be relevant is not always admissible.even a relevant fact is admissible only when it is proved.thus,a relevant fact might not be admissible either:-

1.when it is not proved or

2.when it is not allowed to be proved.i.e when IEA bars it proof.

for instance secs.25-26 of the indian evidence act clearly declares that confessions made to a police officer or confessions made in police custody shall not be proved.thus even if such confessions are relevant ,they are not admissible as they cannot be proved.similarly u/sec.120-130 the IEA clearly prohibits the proof of certain kinds of communications which are called priveleged communications.

other way round there are certain facts which are not expressely declared to be relevant but are allowed to be proved and thus are admissible.for instance the evidence relating to impeachment of the credit of the witness u/sec.155,though not declared to be relevant is allowed to be proved.

this reply was for ur other query

 wel generaly injunction law is applicable to those who are parties to the suit and somehow interested in the subject matter.in the case when wife disturbs the status quo order then contempt proceedings can be initiated and it includes husband and wife both as they are rrelated to each other and interested in the matter and if any other person disturbs and having interest then same as above contempt and if not then a complaint can be lodged to the S.P..

I think it depends on the facts o f the case and the language of the order. If order prohibits the husband as well as any person acting on his behalf or his agent then the husband and wife would be certainly liable for contempt.

any one violating the courts' order is liable for breach of injunction. clause 2-A of order 39 refers to "person guilty of such disobedience", it is not cofined to parties to suit.

 thanx mr. tripathi for the correction

I do agree with the vies of Mr. Palnitkar.

first it is to be looked into that wife is the party in the suit or not.  If she is not a party order will not applicable to her  order is applicble to only aginst whom order is pased

With due respect I do not agree with Mr. Tripathi. A person who is not a party to the proceeding is not expected to know the order of the court. Perhaps he has his own justification. The order of the court is binding only on the parties unless the judgment is in rem. So how a person not bound by the order is liable to punishment for contempt of court.

i  also do aggree with the answer of Mr.Plantikar.

with due respect to sri palnitkar, i reaffirm my view. the provision regarding disobedience of court's order is not confined to parties to suit. further, apart from languege of or. 39 r.2-A, it will be mockery with law and legal process if a person is ordered to maintain status quo and his wife or son changes the status.

In the present case since the injunction order is passed only against the Husband, he will be personally liable for the disobidience of the order, if the same is flouted in terms of Order 39 Rule 2-A  of the CPC, the husband will also be guilty for disobidience if he is acting in collusion with his wife for voilating the terms of the order. So if the wife is not party to the suit, she cannot  be held liable for the breach of the order.

If order is passed in perticular against a single person, any person who is not party to the proceedings cannot be held liable for disturbing the status quo. Some other or fresh proceedings may be initiated against those person, but no action can be taken under order 39 rule 2-A of the CPC against those person.