ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Venkatraman, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This Contempt Case is filed complaining willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 20.01.2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006 by the respondent herein. 3. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent herein not to alienate any of his movable and immovable properties as on the said day, during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Petitioner filed the present contempt case alleging that during the pendency of the said appeal and subsistence of the said interim order, respondent has alienated the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in situated at Palakonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal and District, by way of executing a registered sale deed bearing document No.502 of 2023, dated 07.08.2023 in favour of Mr.Mohammed Abdul Basith. Therefore, respondent committed violation of the said order willfully and deliberately. 5. Respondent filed counter affidavit contending that his counsel did not inform the aforesaid order to him at any point of time till he got notice in the present contempt case. The petitioner herein has filed contempt case vide C.C.No.1374 of 2008 alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 20.12.2006 in FCAMP No.330 of 2006. Vide common order dated 10.04.2024, this Court closed the contempt case and allowed the appeal in part. This Court directed him to pay an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs to the petitioner herein within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, failing which, liberty was granted to the petitioner herein to take steps in accordance with law. However, the common order passed by the learned Family Court granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 09.05.1999 between the parties is confirmed. Therefore, the order under contempt dated 20.01.2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006 is merged with the impugned order. 6. It is further contended that from 2019 onwards, he has been suffering from chronic ailments. He suffered with paralysis. He is not in a position to move his limbs and he is on bed. His health got deteriorated. He needs constant treatment which is expensive. Therefore, he has no means except to sell the subject property to third parties in order to pay his medical bills and also for health necessities. He suffered with paralysis. He is not in a position to move his limbs and he is on bed. His health got deteriorated. He needs constant treatment which is expensive. Therefore, he has no means except to sell the subject property to third parties in order to pay his medical bills and also for health necessities. Therefore, there is no willful and deliberate violation of the said order. 7. The petitioner filed reply to the counter filed by respondent contending that the order dated 20.01.2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006 is not merged in the final order dated 10.04.2024. During the subsistence of the order dated 20.01.2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006, respondent executed the aforesaid sale deed which is in violation of the said order. Thus, he has violated the order under contempt willfully and deliberately. The ‘doctrine of merger’ does not apply against the order dated 04.12.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006 passed by this Court. Respondent filed SLP and vide order dated 05.01.2021, the said SLP was dismissed granting six (6) weeks time to the respondent for making payment to the petitioner herein in terms of the said order dated 04.12.2020. He is hale and healthy and he went to Sub Registrar Office and executed the aforesaid registered sale deed. Therefore, he cannot contend that he is on bed, suffering with paralysis and does not know the order under contempt. 8. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid contempt Case on 05.03.2024. This Court ordered notice to respondent on 02.08.2024. Notice sent to the respondent was returned un-served with postal endorsement ‘addressee left without instructions’. Placing reliance on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, vide order dated 30.08.2024 this Court issued Bailable Warrant to the respondent. 9. In compliance with the said order dated 20.09.2024, the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar District, filed report dated 16.10.2024 stating that the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar, personally traced respondent who is residing at H.No.12-13-742, Street No.1, Keemti Colony, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and executed the pending warrant against him on his personal bond. The Sub Inspector of Police has taken surety bond from the wife of respondent since respondent is bed ridden. The Sub Inspector of Police informed the respondent to appear before the Court on 17.01.2024. The Sub Inspector of Police has taken surety bond from the wife of respondent since respondent is bed ridden. The Sub Inspector of Police informed the respondent to appear before the Court on 17.01.2024. Even then, he has not appeared. Therefore, vide order dated 17.10.2024, this Court directed the Station House Officer, Osmania Police Station, to serve notice on respondent informing about the listing this matter on 13.11.2024. Thereafter, the respondent entered his appearance and filed counter. 10. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the respondent along with his brothers sold the total land admeasuring Acs.3.02 guntas, in Sy.No.42 of Palakonda Village, i.e., Acs.22.05 guntas in each, and Acs.1-17.5 guntas each in situated at Palakonda Village under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5846 of 2017, dated 26.05.2017. 11. Considering the contradictions with regard to statements made by the appellant and the respondent with regard to the extents of the land owned by the respondent both individually and jointly, vide order dated 20.01.2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006, this Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, to investigate as to the actual extent of land owned by the respondent individually and jointly along with his family. This Court also directed him to investigate as to whether the respondent’s mother is actually living with him, or she is living with his elder brother Mr. Raghu Nayak, resident of Hyderabad. This Court also directed him to inform whether the land owned by the respondent’s family, and by the respondent is under cultivation or not. In case, the land is under cultivation, the nature of the crop grown, and the approximate amount, which can be earned from the said standing crop, should be mentioned in the report. 12. In compliance with the said order, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagr, has filed report dated 01.02.2020 stating that respondent is working as Office Subordinate in the office of Tahsildar, Marikal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. He is on long leave from 22.08.2019 and as such his salary has been stopped. He is having land to an extent of Acs.3.22 guntas. an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ guntas in Sy.Nos.42/E4, an extent of Acs.3.01 guntas in Sy.No.42/EE, an extent of Ac.0.13 gutnas in Sy.No.79/A13/EE and an extent of Ac.0.06½ guntas in 79E/18/EE, situated within the limits of Palakonda Village of Mahabubnaagar Urban Mandal. He is having land to an extent of Acs.3.22 guntas. an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ guntas in Sy.Nos.42/E4, an extent of Acs.3.01 guntas in Sy.No.42/EE, an extent of Ac.0.13 gutnas in Sy.No.79/A13/EE and an extent of Ac.0.06½ guntas in 79E/18/EE, situated within the limits of Palakonda Village of Mahabubnaagar Urban Mandal. But the said lands are kept fallow, they are not cultivating the said land. His mother is staying with him. 13. In the said report, DSP has also specifically stated that respondent was unable to speak. He has been suffering from Haemorrhagic Stroke with left thalamic bleed with IVE with Hydocephalus. He has been staying with his mother, his second wife Smt. Nirmala and children. He is on long leave from 22.08.2019, his salary was stopped. 14. Perusal of record would reveal that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was held on 09.05.1999. They blessed with two children. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. Respondent has filed a petition vide O.P.No.649 of 2004 under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner herein for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 15. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the respondent has paid the said amount and also an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses. 16. During the pednency of the said appeal, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in the said appeal to pass decree in her favour by directing the respondent, to pay Rs.40.00 Lakhs and to transfer an extent of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in the aforesaid survey numbers situated in Palakonda Village. On consideration of the said aspects, vide common order dated 10.04.2024, this Court closed the contempt case and allowed the FCA in part, directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In the said common order, this Court also considered sale of the aforesaid land by the respondent along with his brothers by way of execution of registered sale deed bearing document No.5846 of 2017 dated 26.05.2017. 17. This Court also considered the health condition of the respondent herein. He was on leave from 23.08.2019 and his salary has been stopped. In the said common order, this Court also considered sale of the aforesaid land by the respondent along with his brothers by way of execution of registered sale deed bearing document No.5846 of 2017 dated 26.05.2017. 17. This Court also considered the health condition of the respondent herein. He was on leave from 23.08.2019 and his salary has been stopped. This Court also considered that he suffered with brain stroke and he is not in a position to move from the bed. This Court also placed reliance on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This Court also considered the fact that in view of the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent, he was forced to submit resignation on 07.01.2004. Thereafter, he has joined as Office Subordinate in the office of Tahsildar, Marikal Mandal. It was also considered that the respondent is owning the land to an extent of Acs.3.22 guntas, that he assigned Ac.1.00 guntas to his father and only having Acs.2.22 guntas. The details of the same are specifically mentioned in paragraph No.37 of the common order including alienation of the aforesaid property. Vide order dated 10.04.2024, this Court allowed appeal in part and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs to the petitioner herein within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. If the respondent fails to pay the said amount, it is for the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. 18. To punish the contemnor in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there should be willful and deliberate violation of the order as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana , (1994) 6 SCC 332 and in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased rep.by legal heirs ,  Civil Appeal No.4955 of 2022, decided on 06.09.2023] 19. As discussed supra, it is not in dispute that the respondent suffered with brain stroke. He is on the bed. He is not in a position to move and speak properly. It is his case that he has sold his property only to meet his medical expenses. He is not having any other source of income. The petitioner implicated him in a criminal case. Therefore, he has submitted resignation to his job and joined as Office Subordinate in Tahsildar Office, Marikal Mandal. It is his case that he has sold his property only to meet his medical expenses. He is not having any other source of income. The petitioner implicated him in a criminal case. Therefore, he has submitted resignation to his job and joined as Office Subordinate in Tahsildar Office, Marikal Mandal. He was on long leave from 22.08.2019. His salary was stopped. He has to put on constant medical care which is expensive. Therefore, he has sold the said property to meet the said expenditure. In proof of his health condition, he has filed medical reports containing 54 pages including discharge summary, treatment particulars etc. 20. As discussed supra, on consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court awarded an amount of Rs.30.00 Crores to the petitioner herein vide common order dated 10.04.2024. 21. Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Celip LLP v. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna, Contempt Petition © Nos.158-159 of 2024 in Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543 of 2023, dated 13.12.2024. . But the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case. In the present case, respondent is virtually on the bed. He is suffering with brain stroke. He is working as Office Subordinate in Tahsildar Office. His salary was stopped. 22. In the light of the same, this Court is of the view that there is no willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 20.01.2020 in FCA No.151 of 2006 by the respondent herein. 23. Therefore, this Contempt Case is liable to be closed and accordingly the same is closed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed.