Special Appeal against a Contempt Court's refusal to initiate proceedings is not maintainable unless the Court adjudicated merits.

The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married in 2021. Following domestic disputes, the respondent, a serving judicial officer in Bihar, filed for maintenance under the DV Act

In her Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, she marked her income and assets as "N/A," despite her employment status

An ex-parte maintenance order was subsequently passed against the appellant

The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (now Section 379 BNSS) for perjury and filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3201 of 2024, alleging violation of the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha

The learned Single Judge disposed of the contempt plea on August 13, 2024, without a finding on contempt, directing the appellant to pursue the pending Section 340 Cr.P.C. application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

The appellant challenged this order via an intra-court Special Appeal

Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952, which governs intra-court appeals

Supreme Court’s decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunni Lal Nanda, which establishes that a special appeal is maintainable against a contempt court's order only if the court adjudicates on the merits of the underlying dispute or issues directions beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction

Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noting it only permits appeals against orders imposing punishment

The maxim quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum (what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly) regarding the lack of statutory appeal for refusing to initiate contempt

The Court examined whether the Single Judge’s order "overstepped" jurisdiction by deciding on the merits of the matrimonial dispute. It found that the Single Judge merely made a procedural observation—that multiple proceedings on the same facts (contempt and perjury) should be avoided—and provided liberty to transfer the pending perjury application

The Bench reasoned that "merits" in this context refers to the substantive legal/factual questions of the original litigation (the maintenance dispute), which the Single Judge did not touch

Since the Single Judge declined to initiate contempt without determining the rights of the parties or altering the original maintenance order, the order did not possess the "trappings of a final order" necessary to trigger an intra-court appeal

The Court clarified that while Rajnesh v. Neha allows for simultaneous perjury and contempt actions, it does not mandate that the High Court must exercise both powers in every instance

It ruled that an intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 does not lie against an order where the Single Judge has declined to initiate contempt proceedings without delving into the merits of the original dispute

The appeal was dismissed without a representative finding on the merits of the alleged false affidavit