Consent decrees from mediation agreements do not constitute undertakings to the Court for contempt purposes unless accompanied by wilful disobedience.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This Contempt Case (Civil) is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(Div) No.959 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance of an undertaking by the respondent contained in Annexure A5 mediation agreement dated 22.11.2023 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent which was made a part of Annexure A3 decree dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Family Court in terms of that agreement.

2. Going by the averments in the contempt petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 29.05.2006 and there is a male child born in that wedlock on 19.07.2008. The petitioner filed a suit as O.P. (Div) No.959 of 2020 for dissolution of marriage and M.C No.36 of 2020 seeking maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each to the petitioner and her son, before the Family Court, Alappuzha. The matters were referred for mediation and on receipt of the mediation report the Family Court disposed of the suit as per the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2023 in terms of that agreement. As per the terms of the mediation agreement, the respondent has agreed to make a monthly payment of Rs.3,000/- to the son of the petitioner by depositing in his bank account on or before the 10^th of every month. He agreed to give a permanent alimony of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner within three months from 22.11.2023. According to the petitioner, the respondent has not adhered to Annexure A5 agreement, and the act of the respondent is a wilful disobedience or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. Therefore, the act of the respondent is a contempt of Court, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy whether any prima facie case of contempt is made out, so as to proceed further by issuing notice to the respondent as provided under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971. The learned counsel would submit that after entering into a compromise with the petitioner in the mediation and suffering a decree in terms of that compromise, the respondent wilfully violated the decree which in effect is a wilful disobedience of an undertaking given to the Court and hence a civil contempt. The petitioner is entitled to proceed against the respondent by filing an Execution Petition before the jurisdictional Court in terms of Annexure A3 decree and simultaneously with the above contempt petition.

4. As per Section 2 (a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’, in short) contempt of Court means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Section 2 (b) defines civil Contempt and Section 2 (c) defines criminal contempt. In the instant case, we are concerned about the civil contempt, since the allegation against the respondent is that he wilfully violated an undertaking given to the court in Annexure A5 mediation agreement. Section 2 (b) of the Act, which defines civil contempt reads thus:

“(b) Civil Contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court”.

5. A reading of the definition of civil contempt under Section 2 (b) of the Act makes it clear that the said Section has two parts. The first part deals with wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. The second part deals with the wilful breach of an undertaking given to