IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-5757-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 02.12.2025 Paras Arora ...Petitioner Versus Mehak ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for initiation of proceedings against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) for alleged willful breach of the undertaking made before the Family Camp Court at Mukerian on 07.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) in HMA No.218 of 2023, filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the HMA’).

2. Referring to the decision by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Rajat Gupta and others Vs. Rupali Gupta and others (Delhi) (DB), 2018(2) DMC 376, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-wife did not appear for recording of her statement in the second motion in the joint petition filed under Section 13-B of the HMA, as such, the respondent is liable to be punished under Section 10 & 12 of the Act.

3. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

4. Initially, both the parties filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the HMA. The statement of first motion was recorded on 07.12.2023, whereby, the respondent-wife accepted the payment of Rs.6,50,000/- being 50% of the total amount towards past, present and future maintenance. The case was adjourned for second motion. As per the documents on the paper-book, the respondent-wife did not appear for recording of the second motion statement on various occasions, however, ultimately, the amount received by the respondent- wife has been returned to the petitioner-husband, which has been accepted by the petitioner in two installments. A sum of Rs.3,25,000/- was paid through cheque bearing No.362661 dated 14.03.2025 has been received by the petitioner as reflected in the order dated 13.03.2025, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was received by the petitioner vide cheque No. 362664 dated 31.10.2025, as reflected in order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-5 colly.). After acceptance of the entire amount by the petitioner-husband, which he had initially paid to the respondent-wife, the petitioner under Section

13-B of the HMA was dismissed.

5. The larger Bench of the Delhi High Court in Rajat Gupta and others (supra) examined the question as to whether a party, which has under a settlement agreement decreed by a Court, filed a petition under Section 13-B of the HMA, fails to file or appear in the petition, can be held liable for contempt? The Court while observing that the waiting period prescribed in Section 13-B (2) of the HMA has been declared as directory in nature and not mandatory, held that the parties have the option of jointly approaching the Court for waiving the said waiting period, answered the question as under: -

“Answer: (a) The answer to Question (A) is yes. The distinguishing feature of Section 13B of the Act, 1955 is that it recognizes the unqualified and unfettered right of a party to unilaterally withdraw the consent or reconsider/renege from a decision to apply for divorce by mutual consent, notwithstanding any undertaking given in any legal proceeding or recorded in any settlement/joint statement, in or outside the court, resulting in a consent order/decree, to cooperate with the other spouse to file a petition under Section 13B(1) or a second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, or both. Withdrawal of the consent even at the stage of the enquiry, as contemplated under Section 13B(2), is also in exercise of the right available to a party under the very same provision. In other words, the mutuality of the consent to divorce should commence from the stage of filing the First motion under Section 13B(1) and it should continue at the time of moving the Second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, till such time that the court completes the enquiry and a decre