Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court

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