Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vaishally Pundeer vs Abhishek Pundeer on 21 July, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.(S).525 OF 2014
IN
T.P.(C) No. 1050/2013
VAISHALLY PUNDEER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ABHISHEK PUNDEER Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard.
Transfer Petition (C) No. 1050 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.S. No. 35 of 2012 for divorce pending before the Family Court at Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to the Family Court at Thane in the State of Maharashtra.
When the transfer petition came up for orders, the parties were referred to Mediation Centre in the Supreme Court of India to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. The parties appear to have accordingly appeared and negotiated a settlement. One of the terms of the settlement was that the parties would file a joint petition for the dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. The transfer petition was thereafter disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties with the direction that the settlement would form a part of the order. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh
In the present contempt petition filed by the Date: 2015.07.23 11:01:15 IST Reason: petitioner-wife, it is alleged that the payments due under the settlement have not been made to the petitioner-wife despite 2 opportunities and repeated demands to do so. It is also the case of the petitioner-wife that no joint petition has so far been moved by the parties in terms of the said settlement primarily because the joint petition had to be filed only after the payment under the settlement was fully made. The petitioner-wife alleges that the non-payment under the settlement between the parties tantamounts to contempt of this Court.
It is true that the parties appear to have arrived at some kind of settlement before the Mediation Centre but that is far from saying that the same had culminated in the passing of an executable decree. By our order dated 24th March, 2014, we had simply disposed of the transfer petition with the observation that the parties shall be free to abide by the settlement which included filing of a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. If a joint petition is not eventually filed on account of default of one party or the other, it cannot be said that such default will constitute contempt of this Court. It is open to the parties to take the mutual agreement/settlement forward by complying the conditions and file a joint petition as much as it is open to them to change their mind and continue with the wedlock. Whether or not the parties are agreeable to dissolve the marriage by consent is in their volition. This Court cannot invoke its contempt jurisdiction to make the settlement good by coercing the parties to necessarily file a joint petition for divorce. 3
In the circumstances, all that we can possibly do is to recall our order dated 24th March, 2014 and relegate the parties back to the position which they held before the said order was passed. We order accordingly. We further direct that O.S. No.35 of 2012 titled “Abhishek Pundeer vs. Vaishally Pundeer” filed by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, for divorce/dissolution of marriage be transferred to the Family Court, Thane, State of Maharashtra.
We are informed by learned counsel for the parties that a sum of Rs.16 lakhs has already been paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner-wife, pursuant to the settlement before the Mediation Centre. Now since the parties have been relegated to the position they held before the settlement, we have two options before us, namely, (i) to direct refund of the amount, paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner-wife and her child and (ii) to direct adjustment of the said amount towards maintenance, that may be awarded to the wife and child by the concerned court. In our opinion, since the petitioner-wife is not earning and the child is school-going, the first option is not an advisable one. Interest of justice would in our opinion be served if we direct that the transferee court shall while considering any application for grant of the maintenance of the petitioner-wife and her child permit adjustment of the amount already paid towards what may be held payable to them.
4
In the result, contempt petition is dismissed but the transfer petition with the above direction allowed and disposed of. No costs.
.....................J. (T.S. THAKUR) .....................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) .....................J. (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI DATED 21st JULY, 2015.
5
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 525/2014 In T.P.(C) No. 1050/2013 VAISHALLY PUNDEER Petitioner(s) VERSUS ABHISHEK PUNDEER Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 21/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anupam Lal Das,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,Adv.
Ms. Prachi Bajpai,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In terms of the signed order, contempt petition is dismissed but the transfer petition with the direction allowed and disposed of:
“In the circumstances, all that we can possibly do is to recall our order dated 24th March, 2014 and relegate the parties back to the position which they held before the said order was passed. We order accordingly. We further direct that O.S. No.35 of 2012 titled “Abhishek Pundeer vs. Vaishally Pundeer” filed by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, for divorce/dissolution of marriage be transferred to the Family Court, Thane, State of Maharashtra.
We are informed by learned counsel for the parties that a sum of Rs.16 lakhs has already been paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner-wife, pursuant to the settlement before the Mediation Centre. Now since the parties have been relegated to the position they held before the settlement, we have two options before us, namely, (i) to direct refund of the amount, paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner-wife and her child and (ii) to direct adjustment 6 of the said amount towards maintenance, that may be awarded to the wife and child by the concerned court. In our opinion, since the petitioner-wife is not earning and the child is school-going, the first option is not an advisable one. Interest of justice would in our opinion be served if we direct that the transferee court shall while considering any application for grant of the maintenance of the petitioner-wife and her child permit adjustment of the amount already paid towards what may be held payable to them.” (MAHABIR SINGH) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)