2012 Supreme(Del) 1156
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Avneesh Sood
Versus
Tithi Sood
CONT.CAS (C) 559 OF 2011 & C.M.1932 OF 2012
Decided On : 30-04-2012
For the Petitioner:Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Malini Sud, Ms.Vidhi Goel & Ms. Bhumika Menon, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Malvika Rajkotia with Ms. Arpita Rai, Advocates.
Breach of an undertaking given to the Court and violation of settlement terms regarding custody and visitation rights of a minor child constitute contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Divorce Settlement - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 10, 12 - The court found the respondent guilty of contempt of court for breaching her undertaking given in the first motion petition for mutual divorce and for violating the settlement terms regarding custody and visitation rights of the minor child. The respondent was directed to show cause for punishment, file a reply, refrain from breaching the settlement, and pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondent for withdrawing from her undertaking given at the time of filing the petition for mutual divorce. The parties had agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent and had settled all their matrimonial disputes, including custody and visitation rights of their child, as per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The respondent had given an undertaking to the Court affirming the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent guilty of contempt for breaching her undertaking given to the Court and for violating the settlement terms regarding custody and visitation rights of the minor child. The respondent was directed to show cause for punishment, file a reply, refrain from breaching the settlement, and pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the breach of the respondent's undertaking given in the first motion petition for mutual divorce and the violation of the settlement terms regarding custody and visitation rights of the minor child.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent's breach of her undertaking given to the Court and violation of the settlement terms regarding custody and visitation rights of the minor child constituted contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision: The respondent was found guilty of contempt of court, directed to show cause for punishment, file a reply, refrain from breaching the settlement, and pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 2, 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner to take action against the respondent for withdrawing from her undertaking given to the Court, at the time of filing of the petition for mutual divorce, in the matrimonial Court on 14.09.2010.
2. The petitioner, Avneesh Sood and the respondent, Tithi Sood are husband and wife respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.11.2001 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock one daughter, Aisheeya, was born on 23.12.2002, who is studying in Step by Step World School, Noida.
3. The petitioner submits that after sometime of the marriage, serious differences arose between the parties. The parties negotiated between themselves and with the intervention of the family friends, both arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 27.08.2010. They agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent.
4. It was also agreed between the parties that the petitioner will pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. Seven crores to the respondent, as a one-time settlement in lieu of all the claims of respondent towards maintenance, alimony, istridhan, jewellery etc. The petitioner agreed to pay Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs at the time of filing of the divorce petition to seek divorce by mutual consent, i.e. at the first motion, and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of filing of the second motion. The respondent also agreed to make a statement before the Court in support of the divorce petition. It was also agreed that the respondent will vacate the matrimonial home within a period of sixty days of the first motion going through.
5. As per the MOU, the parties agreed that the custody of the child Aisheeya will be with the petitioner exclusively, and he will take care of day to day needs of the child. Respondent was entitled to visit the child and also to take her for outings, including sleepover and to spend time with her, if the child agrees to it.
6. Consequently, In pursuance of this MOU, a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent (under section 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act) was filed by both the parties, incorporating the terms of settlement arrived between the parties, as contained in the MOU. The statements of both the parties were recorded by the matrimonial Court on 14.09.2010. Both the petitioner and the respondent reiterated the terms of settlement arrived between them and also undertook to abide by them. The Court, acting on the statements of the parties, accepted the first motion petition of the parties. The Court also directed both the parties to remain bound with the terms and conditions agreed upon between them.
7. The petitioner paid an amount of Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs, as agreed, to the respondent. The respondent vacated the matrimonial home, 35 Golf Links, on 04.11.2010 with all her belongings and handed over the possession to the petitioner.
8. Since there is a mandatory requirement of cooling off period of six months before which second motion petition cannot be filed, and the first motion petition was accepted on 14.09.2010, the second motion petition could have been filed only after 14.03.2011. The petitioner submits that the draft divorce petition for moving the second motion was sent to the respondent.
9. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that even after the passage of more than four months after 14.03.2011, the respondent has not signed the second motion petition and is not coming forward to make a statement before the matrimonial Court in the second motion to obtain a divorce.
10. Notice was issued in this petition and a chamber meeting was held between the parties, as well as with the child separately, on 15.12.2011. The parties broadly agreed in the meeting in relation to grant of visitation rights to the respondent. Both the parties also agreed that they will take further steps in their divorce proceedings and will bring on