SHIKHA BHATIA Vs. GAURAV BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have led to filing of the present contempt petition are that Petitioner was married to Respondent No. 1 on 2.2.2006. Petitioner made a complaint to P.S. Amar Colony, Delhi on 6.8.2007 and subsequently an FIR under Sections 498-A/406 was registered on 11.10.2007. Respondent No. 1 is the husband; Respondent No. 2 is the father-in-law and Respondent No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the Petitioner. After the registration of the FIR, the Respondents filed an application before the Delhi High Court for grant of anticipatory bail. During the pendency of the application for grant of bail, parties arrived at an amicable settlement, which was recorded in the order dated 23.10.2007. According to this settlement, Respondent No. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 8.0 lacs to the Petitioner herein towards full and final satisfaction of her claims on account of istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future). It was also agreed that Respondent would hand over clothes belonging to the Petitioner; Petitioner would sign first motion for grant of divorce by mutual consent and thereafter parties would sign the final petition under Section 13(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per this settlement, Respondent was to prepare fixed deposit receipts in the total sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs which were to be further bifurcated in three FD Rs - 1st FDR of Rs. 2.0 lacs, 2nd FDR for Rs. 1.50 lacs and 3rd FDR for Rs. 1.0 lac. These fixed deposit receipts were to be handed over to the Petitioner at different stages as detailed in the order. The Petitioner herein was also to cooperate and give her no objection for quashing of the FIR which was registered against Respondents herein. Counsel for Petitioner submits that Respondents have willfully violated the orders and undertaking given to Court which were accepted by the Court on 23.10.2007.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on account of demand of dowry and ill treatment meted out to the Petitioner, she was forced to file a complaint and thereafter an FIR was registered. It is further submitted that in fact Respondents had entered into an agreement with the Petitioner as an illegal device to seek anticipatory bail, as it is on the basis of this very settlement the Court had granted protection to the Respondents herein. Counsel also submits that not only the Petitioner has been cheated by the Respondents, they have also interfered in the administration of justice, besides Respondents are trying to overreach the orders passed by this Court. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate, next submits that terms of the settlement have been incorporated in the order dated 23.10.2007. Counsel for Petitioner further submits that after the settlement was recorded and the matter was disposed of Respondent No. 1 moved an application in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking extension of time for making the FDR which was disposed of by order dated 8.1.2008. It is further submitted that Court had granted time up to 15.2.2008 to the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order dated 23.10.2007. Counsel next submits that another application was filed seeking extension of time which was also disposed of on 15.2.2008 and further eight weeks time was granted as a last opportunity to make the payment. The Respondent thereafter moved another application (Crl. M.A. No. 4309/2008), this time seeking a direction for referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The application was dismissed and the Court had directed compliance of the orders dated 23.10.2007.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to the orders dated 1.5.2008 passed in HMA No. 146/2007, a petition filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was filed by Respondent No. 1 prior to the order dated 23.10.2007. It is submitted that on 1.5.2008 the Counsel for the Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 herein) had made a statement before the Court that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he would be withdrawing the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.