Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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