Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

High Court Rules Withdrawal of Consent for Divorce by Mutual Consent Not Contempt of Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on June 1, 2023, the Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that the withdrawal of consent for divorce by mutual consent cannot be considered contempt of court. The decision, passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, emphasized the absolute and indefeasible right of a party to withdraw their consent for divorce. The court held that the direction to abide by the terms of a settlement does not negate this right.

The case revolved around an appeal filed by Gurditta Ram Chauhan against a maintenance order. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties opted for mediation, and a settlement was reached. However, the respondent, Mrs. Babita, later withdrew her consent for divorce, prompting the petitioner to seek contempt of court proceedings against her.

In the judgment, the court stated, "Withdrawal of consent for divorce by mutual consent is an absolute right. Court cannot compel a party to give consent. Contempt proceedings can be initiated if the defaulting party breaches terms and conditions of an undertaking or consent order/decree, causing prejudice to the other party."

The court further highlighted that the settlement reached during mediation does not equate to an undertaking before the court. It reiterated that the right to withdraw consent is available to a party under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment emphasized that while the defaulting party may be held liable for civil contempt if they breach the terms of an undertaking or consent order/decree, contempt proceedings should only be initiated in appropriate cases.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya clarified, "The right to withdraw the petition seeking divorce under Section 13-B of the Act is inherently available to the parties jointly or even singly. In the background of this, prosecuting and punishing the respondent under the provision of Contempt of Courts will not be the appropriate course to be adopted."

The judgment further noted that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the respondent's account but failed to file the divorce petition within a reasonable time. The court found no evidence of malafide intentions on the respondent's part and dismissed the petitioner's contempt petition.

This judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court provides clarity on the right of parties to withdraw their consent for divorce by mutual consent and highlights the limitations of contempt of court proceedings in such cases.

Decided on   01.06.202

Gurditta Ram Chauhan  vs Mrs. Babita

Latest Legal News