Vineeta Daulet Singh vs Bikkrama Daulet Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Vineeta Daulet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bikkrama Daulet Singh – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 498 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Satakshi Sood and Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Rosemary Raju, Ms. Ajunee Singh, Ms. Gauri Rajput, Mr. Bhanu Thakur and Mr. Ranveer Talwar, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 12, 14 - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13B - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - CONSENT FOR SECOND MOTION - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - SUMMARY OF THE CASE, FINDINGS OF THE COURT, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI AND FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and respondent were married in 2013 and had two children together. However, they started living separately in 2020 due to temperamental issues. During their separation, several litigations were initiated between them, including a petition for permanent custody and guardianship, a complaint case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty, and a criminal complaint. In November 2021, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and agreed to withdraw all pending litigations and file for divorce by mutual consent. The Division Bench of the Court disposed of the appeal in view of the Settlement arrived at between the parties. The parties withdrew their pending litigations and filed for divorce by mutual consent and moved the First Motion before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which was allowed. However, the Second Motion petition has not been moved before the appropriate Court and the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged inaction on behalf of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties and has withdrawn all the cases and complaints filed by him and on his behalf. The Court further held that the respondent has the statutory right to reconsider his decision and consent for obtaining a decree of dissolution of marriage during the intervening period. Hence, an exercise of his rights can in no manner be categorised as wilful disobedience.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's inaction in not giving his consent for moving the petition for Second Motion for divorce amounts to contempt of court? 2. Whether the respondent can be compelled to furnish his consent for moving Second Motion for divorce?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provision for the statutory period from six months to eighteen months has been provided for in the Act of 1955, not only to facilitate the parties to make a considered, well-thought and well-deliberated, calculated and planned decision regarding dissolving their marriage, but also for the Court to examine and adjudge the veracity and genuinity of the consent furnished before the Court. 2. The Court held that an action/inaction cannot be held to be committed/omitted in wilful disobedience of the Courts. order when the law itself permits for such action/inaction. 3. The Court held that the respondent has the statutory right to reconsider his decision and consent for obtaining a decree of dissolution of marriage during the intervening period. Hence, an exercise of his rights can in no manner be categorised as wilful disobedience.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the instant petition being devoid of merit along with pending applications, if any.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter "the Contempt Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a. Initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondent/Contemnor;

b. Punish the Respondent/Contemnor for the wilful disobedience of the Order dated 29.11.2021 passed by this Hon`ble Court in MAT App. (FC) No. 102 of 2021;

c. Pass any such other/further orders as this Hon`ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The record before this Court reveals that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2nd January 2013, and out of the wedlock two children were born, a daughter and a son. However, subsequently the parties started to live separately since 7th October 2020 due to temperamental issues between them. During the time that the parties were separated, several litigations were initiated between them, which included the following:

a. Petition by the respondent for Permanent Custody and Guardianship, bearing GP No. 23/2020, before the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

b. Complaint case by the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, bearing CC No. 5962/2020, before the CMM, Saket Court, New Delhi.

c. Petition by the respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing HMA No. 647/2021, before the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

d. Petition by the petitioner under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, bearing HMA No. 689/2021, before the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

e. Criminal complaint by the petitioner before the Crime against Women Cell, Malviya Nagar.

3. In the Guardianship Petition No. 23/2020, the respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking an interim arrangement regarding the custody and visitation rights of the children. In the said application, the learning Family Court passed the order dated 9th October 2021, whereby the application was allowed. Against the said order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before this Court by way of filing MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 102/2021. The Division Bench of this Court in the said appeal suggested the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement.

4. Consequently, the parties were able to reach to an amicable conclusion and a Settlement Agreement thereto was entered into between the parties on 27th November 2021. Vide the Settlement Agreement, the parties mutually decided to withdraw all pending litigations against each other and to file for divorce by mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 102/2021 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court in view of the Settlement arrived at between the parties.

5. In pursuance of the Settlement, the parties withdrew their pending litigations and also filed for divorce by mutual consent and moved the First Motion before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which was allowed vide order dated 18th February 2022. However, thereafter, the Second Motion petition has not been moved before the appropriate Court and the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged inaction on behalf of the respondent.

6. The moot contention and claim raised by the petitioner before this Court is that, in accordance with Clause 10 of the Settlement dated 27th November 2021 and the order of the Division Bench of this Court binding the parties to the Settlement Agreement, the parties were to file a joint application for waiver of the intervening statutory period of six months, however, despite several attempts to persuade the respondent to move the Second Motion, the respondent/alleged contemnor is not honouring the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the order passed by the Division Bench this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submi