MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present batch of contempt petitions has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings given by a spouse to appear, sign and file both the 13B(1) petition and 13B(2) motion of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955"). These undertakings have been accepted by a Court either at Section 13B(1) stage or incorporated in a consensual decree. In all cases except Cont.Cas(C) Nos.1147/2016 and 1251/2016 the undertakings are against consideration.

2. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, learned counsel for Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Pooja Sharma states that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt to be a wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court or order of a Court. He submits that undertakings given to Courts and orders passed by Courts are to be complied with in all circumstances.

3. According to him, the consent for mutual divorce by way of joint petition under Section 13B of the Act, 1955 cannot be withdrawn by a party for mala fide and extraneous reasons. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajesh Pratap Sainani Vs. Mrs. Bhavna, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 800 wherein it has been held as under:-

“34. The Family Court cannot be helpless spectator and duplicity of the petitioner-husband to induce the hapless wife, the respondent to waive maintenance claim for not only herself and her son, also compelled her to withdraw the criminal complaint in the hope of starting her life afresh. The husband by his conduct has caused the wife huge disadvantage. No spouse can unilaterally, wilfully be allowed to withdraw consent even on the grounds; such as fraud, undue force, representation unless grounds are proved satisfactorily, hi the present case, if the withdrawal of consent by the petitioner-husband is upheld, it will cause anomalous situation and serious prejudice to the respondent-wife, who is law abiding person. She will be left high and dry without recourse to any remedy and saddled with dead marriage. The respondent-husband has resorted to fraud and misrepresentation which cannot be permitted by the Courts of Law and equity.”

4. Mr. Mendiratta further submits that in circumstances similar to the present batch of matters, the Delhi High Court in Avneesh Sood Vs. Tithi Sood, Cont.Cas(c) 559/2011 and Shikha Bhatia Vs. Gaurav Bhatia & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1962 has held that contempt is attracted for breach of undertaking accepted by the Court to file a petition as well as second motion for divorce. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgments is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(A) Avneesh Sood (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-

“46. As aforesaid, the respondent was not bound to give the said undertaking to the Court. However, having given the same, voluntarily and consciously, with a view to derive the benefit of the agreement with the petitioner, if the respondent walks out of the same, only for the reason that she has changed her mind with regard to the custody/visitation rights of the minor child, she must take the consequences. Pertinently, even now, the respondent is not averse to proceeding with the mutual divorce petition and filing a second motion petition. However, she wants to do the same on her own terms in relation to alimony and custody/visitation rights, contrary to her earlier agreement which formed the basis of the first motion petition. It is, therefore, clear that her decision to withhold her consent for moving the second motion petition does not stem out of any new development or mitigating circumstance which would justify the same, but only on account of her having a change of mind on the aforesaid two aspects. It is not that the respondent has decided to continue with the marriage with the petitioner. She has not expressed any desire to resume marital life with the petitioner. It is not her case that her initial decision to move the mutual consent divorce petition was a decision taken by her in haste or was a