HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

VARINDER JEET SINGH vs GURPREET MATAPPFC 89/23 14/09/23

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

Family Courts Act Section 19 Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(B)(1) Contempt of Courts Act Divorce by Mutual consent Dismissal of Contempt Petition Appellant-husband appealed against the dismissal of his contempt petition for the respondent-wife’s failure to comply with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for mutual divorce – Respondent stated that she needed time to reconsider her decision and _ claimed misrepresentation – Court ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing her right to withdraw consent and the lack of contemptuous behavior – Withdrawal of consent by wife at the stage of second motion cannot be termed as contempt of Court.

 

Relevant Paras 

9. It is significant to observe that though the respondent had asserted that her signatures on the MoU were obtained by misrepresentation by the counsel engaged by the appellant during the First Motion, but pertinently not only both the parties appeared before the learned Judge, Family Courts but also reaffirmed the terms of settlement contained in MoU dated 28.09.2020 and also gave their statements accordingly. The custody of the child in compliance of the terms of MoU, was also handed over to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant gave Rs.2 lakhs to the respondent as was agreed in the MoU. In these circumstances, when the terms of the MoU had been duly complied with by the parties and that too, before the learned Judge, Family Courts, it cannot be said that there was any misrepresentation made to the respondent at the time of signing of MoU. As noted above, the terms of settlement are essentially in regard to the payment of Rs.4 lakhs towards all the claims for alimony etc., divorce by mutual consent and the permanent custody of the minor child to be handed over to the appellant/father.

10. In view of the Statute and the observation in the case of Rajat Gupta (supra), the respondent’s withdrawal of consent to come forth for second
motion for divorce by mutual consent cannot be termed as contempt.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the recent Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Anurag Goel Vs. ChhaviAgarwal decided on 09.08.2023 wherein the wife was held to be guilty of Contempt of Court since she failed to abide by the terms of MoU. However, a perusal of the Judgment shows that the respondent-wife therein had
refused to execute the final version of Gift Deed in favour of the appellant which was one of the terms of MoU entered between them. It was thisconduct of the respondent wherein she refused to abide by the terms of settlement by which she had assumed a civil liability, that was held to be contemptuous and accordingly, was held to be guilty under Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. Nowhere does the said Judgment gives a finding that the withdrawal of the party to give consent to the Second Motion amounts to contempt. The Judgment is clearly distinguishable on its facts and is not applicable to the present case. The only alleged act of contempt being non-
signing of the Second Motion petition by one of the party, does not make it a case of contempt as has been held in the case of Rajat Gupta (supra).
13. Before concluding, we may observe that the primary objective of the matrimonial laws, be it under the marriage laws or the Family Courts Act, is
to make sincere endeavour for reconciliation between the parties. Here, the parties mutually entered into a settlement without  initiating any divorce
proceedings in the Court. The MoU was submitted by the parties at the time of First Motion. The respondent in her cooling off period after First Motion, has had second thoughts and decided against taking divorce. The approach of the Family Courts being reconciliatory, it cannot compel the parties to
take divorce if not mutually acceptable. Pertinently, the respondent has no inclination to grant divorce since she has already filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and has also filed a Guardianship Petition for seeking permanent custody of the minor.

To read the judgment click here 

VARINDER JEET SINGH VERSUS SMT. GURPREET KAUR THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT

All Rights Reserved (ISHIKA CHAUHAN 𝔸𝕕𝕧 )