Background of the Case
The Delhi High Court was dealing with a contempt petition filed by a husband alleging that his wife had wilfully breached a mutual divorce settlement after receiving ₹20 lakh towards permanent alimony and other matrimonial claims.
The parties had entered into a settlement agreement on September 1, 2020, agreeing to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Under the agreement, the husband was required to pay ₹40 lakh in total, with ₹20 lakh payable at the first motion stage and the remaining ₹20 lakh at the second motion stage.
The Family Court at Dwarka accepted the first motion on September 22, 2020, following which the wife received ₹20 lakh from the husband.
The parties subsequently filed their second motion petition under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on October 29, 2020. However, the proceedings could not be completed because disputes arose between them.
Subsequent Disputes Between the Parties
Following the first motion, the husband filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking modification of the child custody arrangements, claiming that the application was necessary for the welfare of the child.
Meanwhile, the wife initiated further proceedings against the husband and his family members. She filed a maintenance petition seeking financial support despite having received ₹20 lakh under the settlement. She also instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, which resulted in registration of FIR No. 464/2021 under Sections 406, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The husband alleged that these actions violated the terms of the original settlement, under which the wife had agreed not to pursue further maintenance claims or initiate complaints against him and his family members.
Revised Settlement Between the Parties
During the pendency of the second motion proceedings, the parties were referred to counselling and arrived at another settlement on May 10, 2022.
Under the revised arrangement, the custody of the minor child was to remain with the mother, while the father was granted visitation rights twice a month, along with overnight access during specified portions of the summer and winter vacations.
The husband also agreed to contribute towards the child's educational expenses and provide financial support. He undertook to pay ₹3,000 per month towards the child's maintenance and bear the schooling expenses.
The parties further agreed to withdraw their respective pending proceedings. The wife undertook to withdraw the domestic violence complaint, while the husband agreed to withdraw his custody application. The wife's maintenance petition was to be withdrawn at the time of recording the second motion statements.
The husband also agreed to pay ₹10 lakh at the time of recording the second motion statements and the remaining ₹10 lakh upon quashing of the FIR.
However, according to the husband, the wife subsequently failed to cooperate in completing the second motion proceedings and did not withdraw the domestic violence complaint.
Arguments of the Parties
The husband approached the Delhi High Court under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience of the settlement recorded by the Family Court.
He sought action for contempt and repayment of the ₹20 lakh already paid to the wife, together with interest at 2% per month.
The wife opposed the petition, contending that consent for divorce by mutual agreement must continue until the final decree is passed. Therefore, either spouse has the legal right to withdraw consent before the second motion is concluded.
She further argued that the husband himself had violated the settlement by filing an application seeking modification of the child custody arrangements while the second motion proceedings were pending.
According to her, the husband's conduct constituted a breach of the settlement and justified her decision not to proceed with the divorce. She also claimed that the amount already received stood forfeited under the settlement terms.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The principal issue before the High Court was whether a spouse who has received money under a mutual divorce settlement and subsequently withdraws from the arrangement can be held guilty of civil contempt for wilfully violating an undertaking recorded by the Family Court.
The Court also examined the distinction between the legal right to withdraw consent for mutual divorce and the consequences of deliberately breaching an undertaking given to a court.
Court's Observations on Civil Contempt
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
The Court emphasised that every instance of non-compliance does not automatically constitute contempt. The violation must be deliberate and wilful, without any lawful justification.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, the High Court reiterated that wilful disobedience involves a conscious and intentional act undertaken with the specific intention of disregarding a legal obligation or court direction.
Right to Withdraw Consent for Mutual Divorce
The wife contended that she could not be compelled to proceed with the second motion because mutual consent must continue until the divorce decree is granted.
The High Court acknowledged this legal position and relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, (1991) 2 SCC 25.
In that decision, the Supreme Court held that consent for divorce by mutual agreement must subsist until the decree of divorce is passed. Either spouse is entitled to reconsider the decision and withdraw consent before the final decree.
The Delhi High Court observed that merely withdrawing consent at the second motion stage cannot, by itself, constitute contempt. A court cannot compel either spouse to give consent or grant a mutual consent divorce after such consent has been withdrawn.
However, the Court clarified that the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal must also be examined to determine whether the conduct amounts to a genuine change of mind or a deliberate breach of an undertaking given to the court.
Reliance on Earlier Delhi High Court Judgment
The High Court also relied on its earlier decision in Avneesh Sood v. Tithi Sood, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2445.
In that case, the Court had examined whether a spouse who had voluntarily given an undertaking to proceed with mutual divorce after receiving financial benefits under a settlement could subsequently withdraw from the arrangement without facing consequences under the law of contempt.
The earlier decision recognised that although neither spouse can be compelled to give consent for the second motion, a deliberate breach of a court-recorded undertaking, particularly after obtaining benefits under the settlement, may attract contempt proceedings.
The judgment also recognised that exceptional circumstances arising after the undertaking could justify a party's decision not to proceed with the second motion.
Why the Wife Was Held Guilty of Contempt
Examining the facts, the High Court found that the second motion petition had already been presented on October 29, 2020, before the husband filed his application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act on December 16, 2020.
Consequently, the Court rejected the wife's contention that the husband had breached the settlement by filing the custody application before the second motion was initiated.
The Court also considered the revised settlement dated May 10, 2022, and noted that the husband had complied with his financial commitments towards the child, including monthly payments and the child's schooling expenses.
There was nothing on record to establish that the husband had refused to perform his obligations under the revised settlement.
On the other hand, the wife had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for refusing to proceed with the second motion even after the parties had renegotiated their settlement.
The Court further noted that the wife's maintenance proceedings had resulted in an order granting ₹15,000 per month towards the child's maintenance and ₹10,000 per month towards her own maintenance, with effect from 2021, despite her having received ₹20 lakh under the original settlement.
During the hearing, the Court specifically asked the wife whether she wanted to continue residing with her husband or obtain a divorce. She answered in the negative to both questions.
Relevant Extract from the Judgment
While examining the wife's conduct, the Delhi High Court observed:
"In view of this conduct, it is evident that the Respondent has resiled wilfully from the Settlement, for which there is no explanation."
The Court concluded that the wife had voluntarily given an undertaking before the Family Court and subsequently failed to honour it without any satisfactory justification.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court held the wife guilty of civil contempt for wilfully breaching the settlement dated September 1, 2020, as modified on May 10, 2022.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the wife to refund the entire ₹20 lakh received from the husband within six weeks to purge the contempt.
However, considering the overall circumstances of the case, the Court declined to grant the husband's request for interest on the amount.
The contempt petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Name: Manpreet Singh v. Harleen Kaur Khurana
Court: Delhi High Court
Date of Decision: October 14, 2026
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 752/2022
Coram/Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
