Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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