"Not A Tinge Of Remorse Or Apology": Delhi HC Pulls Up Man Seeking Setting Aside Of Sentence Awarded To Him For Contempt In Matrimonial Case

Coming down heavily on a man who was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for wilful disobedience of repeated Court directions in a matrimonial dispute requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife, the Delhi High Court rejected his plea seeking setting aside of the punishment.

Observing that there was not a tinge of remorse or apology in the application moved, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh expressed their unhappiness over the tenor of the application.

"Had the respondent applicant been remorseful and apologetic, he would have fallen in line and, at least, now – when he is faced with civil imprisonment, would have got off the high horse he is sitting on, and come to the Court with clean hands. However, that is not the case," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a contempt petition filed by the wife under sec. 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging contempt of order passed by the Family Court as well as an order passed by the High Court.

The Family Court had directed that the wife be granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.35,000 and that the husband may clear arrears of maintenance by way of instalments within six months. The High Court had then directed the husband to comply with the interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court.

While awarding punishment, the Court took note of the fact that the man had suppressed his true income only with a view to evade compliance of the orders passed by the Family Court and as well as the High Court requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife. The Court was of the view that the man had chosen to be adamant and obstinate.

The Court however had said that it shall consider recalling the punishment provided that the man complies with the aforesaid direction within a period of two weeks and exhibits his apology by complying with the orders.

During the course of hearing, the Court pulled up the man and observed that he was still not making a full and complete disclosure of his income.

"We may notice that during the proceedings, we had taken note of the fact that the respondent was maintaining a reasonably healthy bank balance, and yet he did not pay the monthly maintenance due to the petitioner wife. Even then his stance was that he needs money for his business," the Court added.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Earlier, observing that the actions or omissions of the husband in choosing to show complete disregard to the orders of the Court cannot be countenanced, the Court said that if such action is permitted, it will lead to anarchy and the Rule of Law would become a casualty and that the orders of the Courts would be taken lightly and breached at the own sweet will of the individual concerned.

"The Respondent has not shown any regard towards the majesty of the court by obeying its orders. He has shown no remorse or regret for non-compliance of the aforesaid orders. If there is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree direction, order writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of undertaking given to the court, the contempt court shall take note of such violation, that needs to be punished. The wilful disobedience by the contemnor undermines the dignity and authority of the Courts and outrages the majesty of law," the Court had said.

It added:

"It is the dignity and majesty of the court which needs to be preserved. The judiciary as an institution has garnered faith of the common masses as a trusted institution only because judicial orders are enforced, in an appropriate case, even at the pain of contempt. The faith posed by the people in the judiciary has to be protected in the interest of society, and also to meet the ends of justice."

Case Title: SONALI BHATIA v. ABHIVANSH NARANG

Click Here To Read Order