Rajat Gupta Vs. Rupali Gupta

Rajat Gupta vs. Rupali Gupta 

Introduction

This case revolves around a reference made by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to a Division Bench concerning the applicability of contempt proceedings in matters involving mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The reference arises from a batch of contempt petitions where one spouse alleged willful disobedience by the other in failing to adhere to undertakings to proceed with divorce by mutual consent. The court examined whether such failures attract contempt liability, considering the statutory framework that allows parties to reconsider their decision during the divorce process. The judgment clarifies the boundaries between enforcing settlements and respecting the legislative intent behind mutual consent provisions, emphasizing the protection of marital institutions while addressing breaches of court-accepted undertakings.

Factual Background

The reference stems from multiple contempt petitions filed before the Delhi High Court, where petitioners claimed that respondents had breached undertakings to file or appear in petitions for divorce by mutual consent. In most cases, the parties had entered into settlements, either in court through mediation or outside, agreeing to dissolve their marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. These settlements often included considerations such as monetary payments, property transfers, or child custody arrangements. The undertakings were recorded in consent orders or joint statements accepted by the court. However, in several instances, one spouse refused to proceed with the first motion under Section 13B(1) or the second motion under Section 13B(2), leading to allegations of willful disobedience. The table provided in the judgment details 17 such cases, highlighting whether settlements were reached in or outside court, the stage of proceedings, and the petitioner's gender. Except for two cases without consideration, all involved undertakings against monetary or other benefits.

Procedural Background

The contempt petitions were initially heard by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who noted conflicting views in prior judgments regarding contempt for failing to honor undertakings in mutual consent divorce proceedings. Doubting the correctness of certain Single Judge decisions in light of a Division Bench ruling, the judge framed four questions of law on January 9, 2017, and referred the matter to a larger bench. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Deepa Sharma, appointed an Amicus Curiae and heard arguments from counsels representing the parties. The bench analyzed statutory provisions, judicial precedents on contempt and waiver, and the public policy implications of marriage. After extensive deliberation, the reference was answered on May 15, 2018, providing clarity on the issues and guidelines for family courts.

Core Dispute

The central issue is whether a spouse can be held liable for contempt of court for failing to file or appear in mutual consent divorce proceedings despite an undertaking to do so, given the statutory right under Section 13B(2) to withdraw consent during the cooling-off period. The dispute balances the enforcement of court-accepted settlements against the legislative intent to allow reconsideration in divorce matters, which are rooted in public policy favoring the preservation of marriage. It also examines if such undertakings waive the right to rethink, the need for judicial guidelines in recording settlements, and the validity of prior judgments on similar issues.

Discussion on Judgments

The parties cited several judgments to support their positions on contempt, waiver, and mutual consent divorce. Sureshta Devi vs. Om Prakash, (1991) 2 SCC 25, was referred to emphasize that mutual consent must continue until the decree is passed, allowing unilateral withdrawal at any stage before the final order, as it underscores the ongoing nature of consent in Section 13B proceedings. Smruti Pahariya vs. Sanjay Pahariya, (2009) 13 SCC 338, was discussed in the context of mutual consent being a jurisdictional fact, requiring the court to verify its genuineness at the second motion stage, reinforcing that consent cannot be presumed from initial filings. Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415, was cited to highlight that irretrievable breakdown is not available to lower courts, and consent must subsist throughout, supporting the argument against compelling divorce. Hitesh Bhatnagar vs. Deepa Bhatnagar, AIR 2011 SC 1637, was used to argue that decree requires complete satisfaction of free consent, allowing withdrawal unless proven otherwise. Rajesh R. Nair vs. Meera Babu, AIR 2014 Kerala 44, was referenced to contend that courts cannot probe the bona fides of consent withdrawal, as it is an unqualified right under Section 13B(2). Prakash Alumal Kalandari vs. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari, AIR 2011 BOM 119, was invoked to suggest that unilateral withdrawal after acting on consent terms may not be permitted if detrimental to the other party. Ishita Kunal Sangani vs. Kunal Sudhir Sangani, 2014 (6) ABR 767, was mentioned but noted as quashed by the Supreme Court. Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Anr., 2006(11) SCC 114, was cited to argue that breach of a consent decree amounts to contempt, as it combines contract and judicial command. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and Ors., 2003(11) SCC 1, was referred to define willful disobedience in civil contempt, emphasizing intent and feasibility. Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307, was used to distinguish contempt from execution in post-decree breaches. Krishna Bahadur vs. Purna Theatre and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 229, was discussed for the principle that statutory rights can be waived if no public interest is involved. Hirabai Bharucha vs. Pirojshah Bharucha, AIR (32) 1945 Bombay 537, was cited to illustrate maintenance as a public policy matter that cannot be waived. Jyoti vs. Darshan Nirmal Jain, AIR 2013 Gujarat 2018, was referenced to stress marriage's public policy dimension, requiring efforts to sustain it. Nagendrappa Natikar vs. Neelamma, 2014(14) SCC 452, was used to argue that maintenance rights cannot be waived due to social welfare considerations. Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashok Manchanda & Ors., 2016(156) DRJ 290(DB), was invoked to explain enforcement of mediated settlements under Section 89 CPC. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24, was cited for ADR mechanisms and their execution. Dr. Keshaorao Krishnaji Londhe vs. Mrs. Nisha Londhe, AIR 1984 BOMBAY 413, was referred to trace the evolution from fault theory in divorce laws. Shri Lachoo Mal vs. Radhey Shyam, 1971(1) SCC 619, was used to validate waivers without statutory prohibition. Rajiv Chhikara vs. Sandhya Mathur, 2017 (161) DRJ 80 (DB), was cited to treat resiling from settlements as cruelty. Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746, was discussed for waiving the cooling-off period in irretrievable breakdowns. Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409, was referred to affirm inherent contempt powers. T. Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 516, was cited to confirm contempt powers' constitutional basis. S. Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju & Anr., 2004 (5) Kar. LJ 338, was invoked for breach of undertaking as contempt. Inderjit Kaur vs. Rajinder Singh, 18 (1980) DLT 197, was used to consider changed circumstances in dropping contempt. Ashish Ranjan vs. Anupma Tandon, (2010) 14 SCC 274, was cited for agreements defeating statutes not attracting contempt. Rajesh vs. Mrs. Bhavna, 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 853, was referred to prevent mala fide withdrawals. D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26, was discussed to limit the petitioner's role in contempt to informer. Shailesh Dhairyawan vs. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619, was cited to affirm consent orders' enforceability. Pramod Gupta vs. State of U.P., (1990) Supp SCC 60, was used for waiving interest rights.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge

The Division Bench meticulously analyzed the statutory framework of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, emphasizing that mutual consent must persist from the first motion to the decree's passage, allowing unilateral withdrawal during the cooling-off period to reflect the provision's intent of enabling reconsideration. The judges distinguished contempt jurisdiction, noting it operates independently and can address breaches of undertakings in settlements, but cannot compel consent for divorce, as that would contravene the statute's public policy favoring marriage preservation. They clarified that while undertakings to file motions cannot waive the right to rethink under Section 13B(2), breaches of other settlement terms, like financial obligations, may attract contempt if willful and detrimental. The bench reconciled prior judgments, affirming that contempt powers are inherent but must align with statutory limits, and provided guidelines for recording settlements to ensure clarity and enforceability, balancing judicial authority with legislative intent.

Final Decision

The Division Bench answered the referred questions, holding that while a party cannot be compelled to consent to mutual divorce despite undertakings, breaches of settlements may constitute civil contempt if willful. The judgments in Avneesh Sood and Shikha Bhatia were upheld as good law, not conflicting with Dinesh Gulati, which was case-specific. Guidelines were issued for courts to follow in recording settlements.

Law Settled in This Case

This judgment settles that mutual consent under Section 13B must continue until the decree, allowing withdrawal without contempt for non-consent, but permitting contempt for other settlement breaches if willful. It affirms no waiver of the reconsideration right under Section 13B(2), as it involves public policy. Courts must record settlements with clear terms, undertakings, and consequences, enforceable via contempt sparingly. Prior Single Judge decisions align with this, and guidelines ensure equitable handling of mutual consent divorces.

Case Details

Case Title: Rajat Gupta Vs. Rupali Gupta 

Date of Order: 15.05.2018

Case Number: Reference in Cont.Cas(C) 772/2013, 347/2013, 484/2014, 584/2014, 648/2014, 48/2016, 483/2016, 484/2016, 1147/2016, 1116/2016, 1251/2016, 78/2017, 132/2017, 197/2017, 204/2017, 216/2017 and 270/2017

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Name of Judge: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Deepa Sharma

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suitable titles for this article for publication in Law Journal:

1. Contempt in Mutual Consent Divorce: Balancing Undertakings and Statutory Rights under Hindu Marriage Act

2. Withdrawal of Consent in Divorce Proceedings: Delhi High Court's Reference on Contempt and Public Policy

3. Enforceability of Settlements in Family Law: Analyzing Contempt Jurisdiction in Rajat Gupta Reference

4. Mutual Consent Divorce and Contempt: Guidelines from Delhi High Court on Undertakings and Waivers

5. Public Policy in Marital Dissolution: Delhi HC's Stance on Contempt for Breaching Divorce Agreements

6. Rethinking Mutual Consent: Delhi High Court's Clarification on Contempt and Section 13B HMA

7. Contempt Powers in Family Disputes: Insights from the Rajat Gupta vs. Rupali Gupta Reference

8. Waiver of Statutory Rights in Divorce: Delhi HC's Analysis of Contempt and Settlement Enforcement

9. Judicial Reference on Divorce by Consent: Contempt Implications and Procedural Guidelines

10. Breaching Undertakings in Mutual Divorce: Delhi High Court's Ruling on Contempt Liability