The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed a petition seeking contempt proceedings against a Respondent-wife for allegedly violating the terms of a settlement in a divorce case.
The Court expounded that parties involved in a divorce by mutual consent have an absolute and indefeasible right to withdraw their consent or petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Satyen Vaidya, presiding over the single Bench, clarified that the Respondent's right to withdraw her consent for a mutual divorce is a fundamental right that cannot be challenged. It was emphasized that any directive issued by the Court, instructing the parties to abide by the settlement terms, should not be interpreted as negating or infringing upon this right.
Brief Facts:
An appeal was filed against a maintenance order issued by the Family Court in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. During the appeal process, a division bench of the Court appointed a mediator to facilitate a resolution between the parties.
The mediator successfully mediated a settlement, which included the dissolution of the marriage and the payment of Rs. 15,00,000 as permanent alimony to the Respondent. Based on this settlement, the appeal was disposed of, with both parties agreeing to abide by the terms of the compromise.
However, the Petitioner deposited only Rs. 8 lakhs in the Respondent's account, and the Respondent subsequently refused to sign the petition for divorce. The Petitioner then filed a petition seeking contempt of court proceedings against the Respondent for failing to comply with the Division Bench's directions.
Observations by the Court:
Upon careful examination of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court noted that the provision grants an absolute and indisputable right to the parties involved to withdraw their petition for divorce. Therefore, the Court stated that it would be inappropriate to compel a party to adhere to terms they had previously consented to, as it would contradict the essence of the section.
Justice Vaidya further emphasized that the Division Bench's instruction to the parties to abide by the settlement terms should not be construed in a manner that infringes upon the statutory right of a party to dissolve their marriage by withdrawing the petition under Section 13-B. It was clarified that attempting to modify or rewrite a provision of the statute would be impermissible.
Regarding the contempt of Court allegations, the Bench observed that the statement made by the Respondent during mediation could be seen as an assurance on her behalf but not as an undertaking before the Court, thereby not attracting the contempt of court provisions.
Consequently, it was concluded that the Petitioner voluntarily deposited Rs. 8 lakhs without any objections from the Respondent regarding its return. In light of this, the Court held that the petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was not maintainable and dismissed it. However, it was explicitly stated that the Petitioner retains the right to pursue appropriate legal recourse if deemed necessary in the future.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Name: Gurditta Ram Chauhan Vs Mrs Babita.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No.: COPC No. : 102 of 2023
Advocate of the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
