Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Anurag Goel – Appellant
Versus
Chhavi Agarwal – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 1342 of 2022 & CM APPL. 52957 of 2022, CM APPL. 15802 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Rosemary Raju, Ms. Gauri Rajput, Ms. Ajunee Singh, Advocates with Petitioner in person.
Ms. Zeba Khair with Ms.Nikita Jain, Advocates along with Respondent in person.

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.

Headnote:
Contempt Petition - Non-Compliance of Settlement Agreement - HMA No. 669/2022 - Summary of Acts and Sections: HMA 1955, Section 13(B)(1), Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - The court analyzed the wilful non-compliance of the Respondent with the settlement agreement and the affidavit of undertaking, and found her guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Fact of the Case:

The parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a First Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Respondent breached the agreement by not executing the Gift Deed, not paying maintenance charges, and pursuing legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The Respondent's conduct constituted wilful violation of the settlement agreement and the affidavit of undertaking. The Court found her guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Issues: Non-compliance with settlement agreement, breach of affidavit of undertaking, pursuit of legal proceedings, interpretation of judgment in Rajat Gupta vs. Rupali Gupta, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9005.
Ratio Decidendi: The Respondent's retraction from the settlement agreement and the affidavit of undertaking constituted wilful violation, and her pursuit of legal proceedings for a more lucrative financial settlement was an abuse of legal process.
Final Decision: The Respondent was found guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,000 and one month of simple imprisonment, with the option to purge the contempt by complying with the settlement agreement within two weeks.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner, husband, being aggrieved by the wilful non-compliance by the Respondent, wife, of the terms and conditions mutually agreed between the parties under the settlement agreement dated 01.09.2022 (`settlement agreement') and the affidavit of undertaking dated 03.09.2022, filed before the Family Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Family Court') in HMA No. 669/2022.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:

2.1. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.07.2015, however, due to the temperamental differences; the parties started living separately since 06.04.2017. The parties have instituted legal proceedings against each other and their family members in Courts at Delhi and Bombay, and as on date there are as many as twenty (20) legal proceedings pending between the parties in different forums all arising out of their separation in marriage.

2.2. In these circumstances, the parties mutually agreed that there is no likelihood of reconciliation between them and with the intervention of the Family Court at Delhi; the parties were referred to mediation. The parties under the aegis of the Principal Counsellor appointed by the Family Court arrived at an amicable settlement of all their disputes and differences with respect to each of the aforesaid twenty (20) legal proceedings.

2.3. The parties, who had full access to legal advice from their respective counsel, drew up the settlement agreement, which contains fifty-six (56) clauses and enumerates a comprehensive step-by-step procedure for bringing an amicable resolution to the disputes and differences between the parties.

2.4. The parties agreed to execute the said settlement agreement and file the First Motion petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`HMA') simultaneously. It is a matter of record that the settlement agreement and First Motion petition was duly executed by the parties and filed before the Family Court. An affidavit of undertaking in terms of the judgment dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajat Gupta vs. Rupali Gupta, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9005, incorporating all the terms of the settlement agreement, was affirmed and duly filed before the Family Court.

2.5. The parties appeared before the Family Court on 14.09.2022 and undertook in the joint statement, filed before the Court, to abide by all the terms and conditions incorporated in the settlement agreement.

2.6. The Family Court after interacting with the parties, perusing the record and satisfying itself with respect to the lawfulness of the settlement arrived between the parties, passed the order dated 14.09.2022, allowing the First Motion petition and bound the parties to the joint statement made before the Court on 14.09.2022.

Re: Agreed upon terms of settlement and subsequent breach thereof by the Respondent

2.7. The parties had agreed that after the First Motion is granted, the Petitioner herein will execute a Gift Deed relating to Flat bearing No. A-52, Kalpataru Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai-400012 (`subject property') in favour of the Respondent.

2.8. It was agreed that the Respondent shall handover to the Petitioner a cheque of Rs.9,91,408/- towards closure of the loan account maintained with the HSBC Bank and procure the original title deeds of the subject property from the said bank. It is a matter of record that the Respondent duly handed over the said cheque at the time of the grant of First Motion and the Petitioner duly deposited the cheque with the HSBC Bank and obtained the closure document of the Home Loan Account on 26.09.2022. The scanned copies of the title documents were furnished to the Respondent in compliance with the settlement agreement to enable her to draw a Gift Deed in compliance with clause 8 of the settlement agreement.

2.9. The draft of the Gift Deed was exchang