JUDGMENT:- A. Selvam, J. 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed praying to issue necessary summons to the respondent and punish him, since he wilfully disobeyed the order dated 08.01.2015 passed in Sub A(MD)No.192 of 2014 in Contempt Petition (MD)No.422 of 2014. 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has filed HCP(MD)No.52 of 2014, wherein she has filed contempt petition (MD)No.422 of 2014 and during pendency of the same, she filed Sub Application (MD)No.192 of 2014, wherein the respondent herein has been specifically directed to grant ordinary leave to the husband of the petitioner and since he has not obeyed the order passed in Sub Application (MD)No.192 of 2014, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that as per order dated 08.01.2015, the respondent herein, third respondent in Sub Application (MD)No.192 of 2014 has been specifically directed to grant ordinary leave to the husband of the petitioner. But he has not done it. Under the said circumstances, the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of this Court and therefore, he is liable to be punished in accordance with law. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that in obedience to the order dated 08.01.2015 passed in Sub Application (MD)No.192 of 2014, the husband of the petitioner has been granted ordinary leave with police escort and since he refused to abide the same and also requested the concerned authority to grant emergency leave, the same has been granted on 13.01.2015 and by way of suppressing all the material facts, the present petition has been filed and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. It is seen from the counter filed on the side of the respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons has granted ordinary leave for 30 days with police escort and due information has been given to the petitioner. But the petitioner has requested the concerned authorities to grant emergency leave and accordingly on 13.01.2015 emergency leave has been granted. 6. The specific contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is that even though a specific direction has been given to the respondent herein to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner, the same has not been granted. But the materials found in the counter are otherwise. 6. The specific contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is that even though a specific direction has been given to the respondent herein to grant ordinary leave to the petitioner, the same has not been granted. But the materials found in the counter are otherwise. To put it in short, in obedience to the order dated 08.01.2015, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons has granted ordinary leave to the husband of the petitioner for 30 days with police escort. But he has not availed it. Under the said circumstances, question of wilful disobedience of the order dated 08.01.2015 passed in Sub Application (MD)No.192 of 2014 does not arise and the respondent cannot be mulcted with any liability. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. Connected Sub Application (MD)No.31 of 2015 is also dismissed.