Withdrawing Consent For Divorce U/S 13B Hindu Marriage Act Not Contemptuous: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dismissing a petition for invoking contempt proceedings against the Respondent-wife for violating terms of settlement with her husband, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that parties have an indefeasible and absolute right to withdraw their consent/petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Justice Satyen Vaidya, while clarifying that the Respondent's right to withdraw her consent for a mutual divorce is absolute and cannot be disputed, also emphasized that any directive issued by the Court, instructing the parties to adhere to the settlement terms, should not be interpreted as undermining or nullifying this fundamental right.

In the instant matter the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging a maintenance order issued by the Family Court in Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, India. During the appeal process, a Division Bench of the Court appointed a mediator to facilitate a resolution between the parties. The mediator reported a successful mediation where the parties agreed to a settlement, including the dissolution of the appellants 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 the parties agreeing to be bound by the terms of the compromise.

The petitioner then deposited Rs. 8 lacs in the account of the Respondent but the latter refused to sign the petition for divorce. Hence, the present petition came to be filed seeking to hold the Respondent responsible for Contempt of Court as she did not abide by the directions of the Division Bench.

Upon careful examination of Section 13-B, the High Court noted that the provision grants an absolute and undeniable right to the parties involved to withdraw their petition. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to force a party to adhere to the terms they had previously consented to, as it would contradict the essence of this section, it reasoned.

Justice Vaidya further emphasized that the Division Bench's instruction to the parties to abide by the settlement terms cannot be interpreted in a way that infringes upon the statutory right of a party to dissolve their marriage by withdrawing the petition under Section 13-B. Any attempt to modify or rewrite a provision of the statute would be entirely impermissible, the bench underscored.

Deliberating on the application of Civil Contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 and its application to the case at hand the bench observed,

“The statement made by respondent before the Mediator can at best be said to be an assurance on her behalf. It cannot be construed to be an undertaking and not at least an undertaking before the Court so as to attract the mischief of contempt of court”.

Accordingly the bench concluded that the Petitioner willingly deposited Rs. 8 lakhs without any objections from the Respondent regarding its return. In light of this, the Bench determined that the petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not viable and has consequently dismissed it. However, the Bench made it clear that the petitioner retains the right to pursue the appropriate legal recourse in this matter, if necessary.

Case Title: Gurditta Ram Chauhan Vs Mrs Babita.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 38

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment