Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
M – Appellant
Versus
P.B. – Respondent
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 387 of 2018
Decided On : 20-05-2019
Contempt - Dissolution of Marriage - Special Marriage Act, 1954, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 28(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that the respondent committed contempt of an order dissolving their marriage under Section 28(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, by making contradictory statements in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's statements in the domestic violence proceedings did not amount to contempt as they did not directly contradict the statements made during the dissolution of marriage.
Issues: Alleged contempt of court order dissolving marriage, contradictory statements in domestic violence proceedings, breach of undertaking given to the court
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's statements in the domestic violence proceedings did not breach the undertaking given to the court during the dissolution of marriage, and the petitioner should cross-examine the respondent in the pending proceedings instead of initiating contempt proceedings.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the present petition.
JUDGMENT :
Prateek Jalan, J.
1. The petitioner is present in person and states that he wishes to argue the petition without the assistance of counsel.
2. In the present petition, the allegation of the petitioner-husband is that the respondent- wife has committed contempt of an order passed by the Family Court dated 02.05.2014 by which their marriage was dissolved under Section 28(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The argument is that the respondent has filed proceedings against the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which she has made statements contrary to those which were recorded at the time of dissolution of marriage.
3. The marriage of the parties were solemnized in 24.08.2011 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They filed the petition for divorce on 23.04.2014 wherein it was inter alia stated as follows:-
"1. That the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.08.2011 under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The said marriage was consummated thereafter and the parties co-habited as husband and wife at the matrimonial home i.e. WZ-1033 GALI NO. 13 SADH NAGAR PALAM."
4. Before the Court, the parties made the following statement recorded on 02.05.2014:-
| "Joint Statement of Dr. Mukul S/o Sh. Piyush R/o A9, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-49, petitioner no. 1 and Smt. Preeti Bhatia W/o Dr. Mukul R/o WZ-1130, Sadh Nagar Palam, New Delhi-45, petitioner no. 2. | |
| On SA | |
| We the petitioners were married on 24.08.2011 under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 Copy of Marriage Certificate is Ex.P-2(OSR). No child was born from the union. We have been living separately since inception due to temperament differences and attitude and there is no cohabitation between us. Efforts for reconciliation had been made by the parties, relatives, friends and the Court, but all in vain. We undertake to abide by terms and conditions enumerated in the petition. There has not been any cohabitation between us from the date of our separation. We have settled all our disputes and claims with regard to the dowry, stridhan and the past, present and future maintenance amicably, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the petition i.e. Ex.P-1, which bearing signature of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 at points A and B. | |
| We further undertake that we shall abide by our statement made in the Court and the terms and adhere to conditions mentioned in the petition i.e. Ex.P-1, which bears signature of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 at points A and B. For identification, petitioner No. 1 has placed photocopy of his Voter I-card, same is Ex. P 3(OSR). For identification, petitioner No. 1 has placed photocopy of her I-card, Ex.P-4 (OSR). There is no collusion between the parties in filing of this petition. Our consent has not been obtained by threat, pressure or coercion, force, fraud or undue influence. Full and final settlement of all our disputes has been made. We pray that our petition u/s. 28 (1) of the Special Marriage, 1954 may be allowed as compromise has been effected between us as we have resolved all our differences and have decided to part ways and seek divorce, consequently our marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. | |
| Sd/- | Sd/- |
| Petitioner No. 1 | Petitioner No. 2." |
5. After recording the aforesaid statement, the Family Court passed an order dissolving the marriage. It was recorded inter-alia that the parties had been living separately "since inception due to temperament differences and attitude and there is no cohabitation between them." It was also recorded that the parties have undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the petition.
6. The respondent has thereafter filed proceedings under the Protection of Women
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
