Sangeeta Mudgal v. Rahul Dutt Mudgal

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner by virtue of which she has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against her husband, the respondent herein.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

3. The petitioner seeks to initiate contempt action against her husband/respondent herein for not complying with the terms of the settlement recorded before the ADJ in HMA No.107/2010 on 27.07.2010 as well as despite the contempt petition having been filed 2014:DHC:7184 by the respondent earlier being No.479/2011, which was withdrawn by him.

3. I have gone through the record and I do not feel that any contempt action deserves to be initiated against the respondent as there is no wilful disobedience of any order/direction/judgment or decree. This is on account of the fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties was settled which culminated into passing of the first motion on 27.07.2010. The terms of settlement were reduced into writing as per Ex.P-1 in HMA No.107/2010 and it was agreed between the parties that the respondent/husband shall transfer by way of relinquishment deed his share in Flat No.A-3/53, Second Floor, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi with roof rights unconditionally in favour of the petitioner on the date of recording of statement of the parties in the second motion petition. It was also undertaken that the parties would abide by the terms of settlement.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent having agreed to abide by the terms of the settlement has not adhered to the same and thus the present contempt petition has been filed.

5. Earlier the respondent had filed a contempt petition being Cont.Case (C) No.479/2011 which, after some arguments, was permitted to be withdrawn subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. The said cost was paid on 06.09.2012 and the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Now the petitioner has filed a contempt petition praying for enforcement of the terms of settlement (Ex.P-1) as recorded in HMA No.107/2010.

7. The contempt petition would not lie against the respondent. The law of contempt carries punitive sanction and like other criminal law, which has to be construed strictly, the contempt law has also to be construed strictly as it entails incarceration and imposition of fine by way of punishment. The petitioner has not been able to show as to how the respondent has violated any order, judgment or decree or an undertaking so as to warrant any action against him.

8. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

9. The contempt notice is discharged. V.K. SHALI, J. DECEMBER 16, 2014