Smt.Sangeeta Mudgal vs Rahul Dutt Mudgal
2014 Latest Caselaw 6886 Del

*           HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CONT.CAS(C) 132/2013

                      Decided on : 16th December, 2014
    SMT.SANGEETA MUDGAL                     ..... Petitioner
                      Through:          Mr.J.K.Bhola, Adv.
                               versus
    RAHUL DUTT MUDGAL                                        .... Respondent
                      Through:          Mr.Rajesh K.Sharma, Adv.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

    V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner by virtue of

which she has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against her

husband, the respondent herein.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the record.

3. The petitioner seeks to initiate contempt action against her

husband/respondent herein for not complying with the terms of the

settlement recorded before the ADJ in HMA No.107/2010 on

27.07.2010 as well as despite the contempt petition having been filed by the respondent earlier being No.479/2011, which was withdrawn by

him.

3. I have gone through the record and I do not feel that any

contempt action deserves to be initiated against the respondent as there

is no wilful disobedience of any order/direction/judgment or decree.

This is on account of the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the

parties was settled which culminated into passing of the first motion on

27.07.2010. The terms of settlement were reduced into writing as per

Ex.P-1 in HMA No.107/2010 and it was agreed between the parties

that the respondent/husband shall transfer by way of relinquishment

deed his share in Flat No.A-3/53, Second Floor, Sector 15, Rohini,

Delhi with roof rights unconditionally in favour of the petitioner on the

date of recording of statement of the parties in the second motion

petition. It was also undertaken that the parties would abide by the

terms of settlement.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent having agreed

to abide by the terms of the settlement has not adhered to the same and

thus the present contempt petition has been filed.

5. Earlier the respondent had filed a contempt petition being

Cont.Case (C) No.479/2011 which, after some arguments, was

permitted to be withdrawn subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to

the petitioner. The said cost was paid on 06.09.2012 and the contempt

petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Now the petitioner has filed a contempt petition praying for

enforcement of the terms of settlement (Ex.P-1) as recorded in HMA

No.107/2010.

7. The contempt petition would not lie against the respondent. The

law of contempt carries punitive sanction and like other criminal law,

which has to be construed strictly, the contempt law has also to be

construed strictly as it entails incarceration and imposition of fine by

way of punishment. The petitioner has not been able to show as to

how the respondent has violated any order, judgment or decree or an

undertaking so as to warrant any action against him.

8. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

9. The contempt notice is discharged.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 16, 2014/dm