IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Mithun Radhakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Aastha Sahdev - Respondent
Cont Cas (C) No. 216 of 2017; C.M. Appl No. 18156 of 2020
Decided On : 15-03-2021
The parties, Hindus by religion, decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 30.04.2015. The MOU detailed the settlement amount, payment schedule, and the return of streedhan and belongings. The joint statement before the Court on 02.05.2015 confirmed the settlement and the undertaking to abide by the terms. The Petitioner paid Rs. 20 Lakhs, but the Respondent failed to file the second motion for divorce and did not return the money. The Division Bench held that a defaulting party can be held liable for civil contempt for breaching the terms of an undertaking given to the Court. The Respondent was found guilty of contempt for breaching the MOU and the Court's order.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 2, 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disregard and disobedience of the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 02.05.2015 as well as non compliance of an undertaking given in Court on 02.05.2015, on oath, to abide by the terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.04.2015 in the joint petition filed under Section 13 B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA').
2. Petitioner and Respondent are Hindus by religion and their marriage was solemnized on 07.09.2013. There is no child from the wedlock. Subsequent to the marriage the parties lived together in Singapore where they worked and were gainfully employed.
3. On account of serious temperamental differences between the parties, they started living apart since April 2014. As the differences increased and the disputes became serious, Respondent herein left Singapore in August, 2014, after quitting her job, as the parties thought of giving some space to each other to reconcile their differences. Several efforts of resolving the differences and reconciliation failed whereupon the parties decided to dissolve the marriage, which in their perception had broken irretrievably.
4. With the efforts of friends and family the parties decided to separate amicably and to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MOU) was arrived at between the parties on 30.04.2015 wherein it was agreed that Petitioner herein shall pay to the Respondent / wife a total sum of Rs.34 Lakhs towards full and final settlement with respect to the alimony. Out of Rs.34 Lakhs, a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs was to be paid vide Wire Transfer in Development Bank of Singapore Account, before recording the first motion in the petition for mutual consent under Section 13 B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The balance amount of Rs.24 Lakhs was payable as follows :-
(a) First post dated cheque for Rs.10 Lakh was to be drawn up on 01.08.2015; and
(b) balance amount of Rs.14 Lakhs was payable vide a Demand Draft at the time of recording of the second motion.
5. It was also agreed in the MOU that the Petitioner herein / husband would return all the streedhan and belongings of the Respondent before the recording of second motion and thereafter both parties shall have no claim on each other's immovable and / or any other movable property and shall not file any cases, civil or criminal against each other and the family members of each other. Both parties agreed that breach of any of the terms of the above agreement by either of the parties shall amount to a contempt of Court.
6. As per the Petitioner, it was specifically agreed between the parties that the parties shall petition the Court at Delhi praying for a decree of divorce by mutual consent and shall take steps to achieve that end. It was agreed that parties shall cooperate and facilitate the passing of a decree by a Competent Court and shall sign pleadings, swear affidavits and do all other things necessary towards effecting a divorce.
7. Pursuant to the MOU dated 30.04.2015, a petition under Section 13B(1) of the HMA was jointly filed on behalf of the parties in the Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi, being HMA Petition No.462/2015. Conciliation efforts made by the learned Trial Court were unsuccessful and consequently, joint statements of both the parties was recorded on 02.05.2015, wherein it was stated that the parties were unable to live together being incompatible and on account of temperamental differences. It was also stated by the parties that they have settled all their claims and disputes amicably vide MOU dated 30.04.2015 and the MOU was exhibited as Ex. P-1. Relevant part of the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the first motion on 02.05.2015 is as follows :-
"Consequently, the joint statement of both the petitioners was recorded on 02.05.2015 wherein it is stated b
Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka vs. Kapurchand Ltd.
Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and another
Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi
Mohd. Aslam vs. Union of India
Noorali Babul Thanewala vs. K.M.M. Shetty
Willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court amounts to Contempt of Court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The undertaking given to the Court binds the party, and failure to comply with it constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Giving of an undertaking to the court is distinct from a consent order recording compromise. In the latter case of violation of compromise, no question of contempt arises, but the party can enforce t....
(1) Contempt of Court – Normally, question whether a party is guilty of contempt is to be seen in specific context of disobedience and wilful nature of same and not on the basis of conduct subsequent....
The withdrawal of consent for the second motion of divorce by either party cannot be considered as contempt of court, and the reconciliatory approach of the Family Courts in matrimonial matters was e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of honoring undertakings given to the court and the consequences of deliberate non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of willf....
The judgment emphasized the need for a clear case of wilful disobedience to the Court's order before exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.