Ramona Jind vs Sohnu Mohan
2014 Latest Caselaw 6969 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Cont. Cas (C) No.170/2014

                                         Decided on: 18th December, 2014

    RAMONA JIND                                         ..... Petitioner
                 Through:       Mr. Saurabh Chauhan & Mr. Varun Jain,
                                Advocates with petitioner in person.

                       versus

    SOHNU MOHAN                                        ..... Respondent
            Through:            Mr. Prag Chawla & Mr. Abhey Narula,
                                Advocates.

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

    V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present contempt petition is premised on the fact that the

respondent has wilfully breached his undertaking purported to have

been given to the court on 25.7.2013.

2. The petitioner and the respondent apparently seem to be having

a matrimonial dispute which resulted in filing of Crl. M. (C)

No.3731/2012. The parties have two children from the wedlock, who

are informed to be US citizens. The petitioner is also a US citizen but

presently she is in India and the respondent also happens to be a US

citizen, stationed in America.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, on 25.7.2013, the

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions,

stated that the respondent would have no objection to prayer (a) of the

application being Crl. M.A. No.10195/2013.

4. I have been informed that the aforesaid application was filed by

the present petitioner seeking signatures of the respondent (father of

the minor children) in order to get the children's passports, visa and

application for OCI card extended as the same were expiring.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid concession having been made by

the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, the learned

judge of this court observed that the respondent may sign and send the

relevant documents for renewal of passports, extension of visa and

application for OCI card within a period of four weeks.

6. Apparently the respondent did not oblige by adhering to the

concession made by him through his counsel.

7. The learned counsel has pointed out that the aforesaid order

was repeated in Crl. Revision Petition No.591/2013 on 30.10.2013

filed by the respondent herein, where the court had taken note of the

fact that the respondent (petitioner in the said revision petition) had not adhered to the terms contained in para 4 of the order dated

25.7.2013. In the same revision petition, on 11.12.2013, the court

again noted the fact that the respondent was acting truant and

accordingly, directed the respondent (petitioner in the revision

petition) to file an affidavit with respect to the renewal of the

passports/visa and the application for OCI card to be signed by him in

terms of para 4 of the order dated 25.7.2013 within ten days.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

instead of filing this affidavit, the respondent filed an affidavit dated

27.12.2013, duly notarized by the notary in California, USA, wherein

he had stated that he had received a legal opinion from an attorney in

USA and, therefore, he did not sign the documents as conceded by

him. The learned counsel has contended that by filing this affidavit,

the respondent has breached the undertaking and not complied with

the order and thus, he is guilty of contempt.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.

10. Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines

'civil contempt' which means wilful, disobedience of any order,

direction, judgment or a decree passed by the court or any undertaking given to a court. The learned counsel has construed the

action on the part of the respondent as a breach of an order passed by

the court as well as the breach of an undertaking given by him and

thus, wants an action for contempt to be initiated against him.

11. So far as the undertaking is concerned, I am not in agreement

with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

respondent has given any undertaking to the court to sign the

documents for extension of visa, passports and OCI card application.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent had only conceded, on

instructions, that his client has no objection to the signing of these

documents. Later on, the respondent, on a second thought had resiled

from the said concession and this is the reason why the court had

specifically passed an order directing the respondent to file an

affidavit.

13. This affidavit filed by the respondent was not at all in line with

para 4 of the order dated 25.7.2013 and, therefore, the affidavit filed

by him on 27.12.2013, wherein he has annexed the opinion of some

counsel in USA stating that signing of the papers may be construed

against him, cannot be treated to be an undertaking to this court so as to warrant any action on account of the alleged breach. Therefore, in

the absence of any specific commitment, assurance or undertaking

having not been given to the court, I do not think the question of

breach of the same arises.

14. The second component alleged is with regard to violation of the

court order. The refusal to sign the documents, as stated hereinabove,

cannot be treated as a breach of the order as the order was not a

direction by the court, it was only an order which was passed on the

basis of the concession having been made by the learned senior

counsel for the respondent.

15. The court was conscious of the fact that the respondent had

resiled from his concession and that is the reason why it passed an

order directing him to file an affidavit so that he could have been

pinned down for violation of the undertaking. Therefore, the order by

virtue of which he was directed to file an affidavit with respect to

signing the documents for extension of visa or OCI card or the

passports, cannot be treated as a direction having been given by the

court.

16. Assuming, though not admitting, that the direction was given by the court, it is not necessary that every disobedience results in

violation/contempt. The violation of an order of the court must be

wilful, contemptuous, deliberate and gross, then only it will warrant

an action against the respondent.

17. In the instant case, the respondent has tried to justify his non-

compliance by relying upon some opinion purported to have been

furnished by some attorney in the USA. Therefore, the respondent is

well within his right to protect his rights by not signing, if he has been

advised to do so. I feel that no case for contempt is made out.

18. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed and the

contempt notice is discharged; however, the petitioner is free to take

such recourse in law as may be permissible to him to get his

grievances redressed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 18, 2014 'AA'