Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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