Bushr Parveen v. Dr Aamir Khan

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The factual background in the context of which the petition has been filed, is peculiar.

4. The petitioner initially filed an FIR No. 438/2021 under Sections 376 and 328 of the IPC at P.S. Ranjit Nagar against the respondent. Following the registration of the said FIR, a Nikahnama was performed between the parties.

5. Vide order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, the respondent was granted bail. Thereafter, on 06.03.2022, a formal marriage ceremony took place between the parties.

6. Subsequently, the parties executed a compromise deed dated 04.04.2022, which was made the basis for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The said compromise deed, inter-alia, contemplated that the respondent would bear all household expenses and pay a dedicated monthly allowance of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner for her personal expenses.

7. Thereafter, in the above background, this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 passed in CRL.M.C. 175/2022, quashed the aforesaid FIR NO. 438/2021. It is the case of the petitioner that almost immediately after quashing of the said FIR, the respondent stopped making the monthly payments and subjected the petitioner to cruelty, forced her for abortion and also abandoned her.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed CONT.CAS(C) 460/2023, in which order dated 27.07.2023 came to be passed, which is in the following terms:

9. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid order, the respondent did not abide by its undertaking to take the petitioner back and co-habit with her. It is submitted that petitioner was blocked from entering the respondent’s house, forcing her to file a complaint dated 22.08.2023 at PS Chola, Bulandsahar.

10. It is submitted that thereafter, yet another Contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 1785/2023 came to be filed by the petitioner for violation of the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2023. It is submitted that the same was withdrawn on account of being induced by the promises of an out of Court reconciliation.

11. However, the mutual reconciliation never materialised. Following the withdrawal by the petitioner of the aforesaid contempt petition bearing CONT.CAS(C) 1785/2023, the respondent sent a registered Talaq letter to the petitioner and second Talaq letter on Whatsapp, and subsequently married another individual.

12. Prima facie, in the above background, it is evident that the respondent has acted in breach of the compromise deed dated 04.04.2022, which imposed various obligations on the respondent, in particular, the obligation to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner. The said compromise deed had a crucial bearing on the proceedings in CRL.M.C. 175/2022, in which FIR No. 438/2021 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022. Despite having being absolved of the serious offences which were the subject matter of the aforesaid FIR, the respondent appears to have acted in absolute disdain of the compromise deed. In terms of the dicta in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai, (2023) 17 SCC 545 and Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora, (1996) 6 SCC 14, the same amounts to ‘contempt’. The relevant observations in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra) are reproduced as under –

13. This Court also finds the conduct of the respondent in re-marrying some other person without discharging his obligations towards the petitioner, to be quite reprehensible.