LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-300

COURT ON ITS QWN MOTION Vs. FARAH KHATOON

Decided On December 20, 2013
Court On Its Qwn Motion Appellant
V/S
Farah Khatoon Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the Respondent. In the entire reply we have noticed that not even a single word expressing remorse of her contumacious conduct as reflected in the order dated 27th November 2013. Learned counsel for the contemnor Farah Khatoon requested for a pass over so that respondent can file a fresh affidavit to express her unqualified apology for her conduct during the course of hearing of the main petition on proceedings of 27th November 2013. The contemnor Farah Khatoon is also present in court.

(2.) In the additional reply, Respondent has stated that she came in contact with the petitioner while working as teachers in MCD School, Delhi and during that period the petitioner had given a marriage proposal which was initially refused by the respondent as she belonged to muslim religion but later after strong persuasion of the petitioner Rakesh, she became ready to marry him but subject to the condition they will not consummate their marriage until and unless petitioner Rakesh persuade her parents to this marriage. In the reply, she has admitted that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised on 9th April 2012 and the same was also registered with the Registrar of Marriages on 30th April 2012. It is further stated that after the said marriage, the petitioner did not make any sincere efforts to persuade her parents or to care for the said marriage. It is also stated that the petitioner in his own manner and without intimation to the contemnor, flashed the information of their marriage to her parents and other family members and as a result of which the Respondent came under lot of social pressure and it is because of such social pressure and she being not well conversant with the law and legal procedures and without the aid and advise of any legal expertise made a false statement before the court denying the factum of marriage and its registration as well, although the documents to this effect were duly placed on record by the petitioner. It is further stated that the Respondent has not made the false statement before this court intentionally or deliberately or with ulterior motives as she was under a great traumatic state under pressure from her parents and the relatives to deny the said marriage with the petitioner, who does not belong to her religion. Respondent has also expressed her unqualified apology for her such contumacious conduct in the court. The respondent is also present in court and she has pleaded for showing leniency in the light of the facts explained by her in her additional reply/affidavit.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel (Cri.) for State and counsel representing the contemnor.