REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rajat Gupta Appellant

V/S

Rupali Gupta Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RUSSEL V. RUSSEL [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. DR. HAKIMWADI TENANTS' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHA BHATIA VS. GAURAV BHATIA [REFERRED TO]
MITEN S/O. SHYAMSUNDER MOHOTA (GOIDANI) AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHA BHATIA VS. GAURAV BHATIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH PRATAP SAINANI VS. MRS. BHAVNA [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHOVANDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKKAR VS. RATILAL MOTILAL PATEL [REFERRED TO]
LACHOO MAL VS. RADHEY SHYAM [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SURESHTA DEVI VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
SUB COMMITTEE OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. TRIPURA BAR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
KAPILDEO PRASAD SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. HARISH KUMAR PUROHIT [REFERRED TO]
LAXMINARAYAN R BHATTAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR VS. RAKESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BAHADUR VS. PURNA THEATRE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR JAIN VS. MAYA JAIN [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION CO P LTD [REFERRED TO]
SANT LAL GUPTA VS. MODERN CO OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]
HITESH BHATNAGAR VS. DEEPA BHATNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH R.NAIR VS. MEERA BABU [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present batch of contempt petitions has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings given by a spouse to appear, sign and file both the 13B(1) petition and 13B(2) motion of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955"). These undertakings have been accepted by a Court either at Section 13B(1) stage or incorporated in a consensual decree. In all cases except Cont.Cas(C) Nos.1147/2016 and 1251/2016 the undertakings are against consideration.

(2.) Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, learned counsel for Mr. Rajat Gupta and Ms. Pooja Sharma states that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt to be a wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court or order of a Court. He submits that undertakings given to Courts and orders passed by Courts are to be complied with in all circumstances.

(3.) According to him, the consent for mutual divorce by way of joint petition under Section 13B of the Act, 1955 cannot be withdrawn by a party for mala fide and extraneous reasons. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajesh Pratap Sainani v. Mrs. Bhavna, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 800 wherein it has been held as under:-

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJAT GUPTA Vs. RUPALI GUPTA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address