PREETI KAPOOR Vs. ANSHUMAN KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia is the order dated 26. 3. 2009 passed by Shri Narinder Kumar, additional District Judge-01 (West), Delhi dismissing the petitioner's contempt Petition No. 1/2009 seeking an order for making reference to this court under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act on account of the alleged willful breach by the respondent No. 1 of the undertaking given by him on 31. 8. 2008 in H. M. A. Case No. 550/2008. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are proforma respondents. They acted as the counsel for respondent No. 1 before the trial Court which passed the decree of divorce by mutual' consent. The expression "parties" used in this order refers to the petitioner and respondent No. 1 only, unless the content otherwise requires.

(2.) THE petitioner was married to the respondent No. 1 on 19. 4. 2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children, namely, Sanah kapur and Aayana Kapur were born from the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, the parties {i. e. the petitioner and respondent no. 1) could not reconcile their disputes and started living separately since 15. 9. 2007. It appears that the parties, with a view to arrive at a mutual settlement which, inter alia, provided for divorce by mutual consent entered into an agreement on 13. 9. 2008. Under this agreement it was recorded that the petitioner herein is in occupation of premises situated at 121, Anupam gardens, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062. This agreement also provided that if the petitioner pays to the respondent a sum of Rs. Two crores by 31st december, 2008 the said property would be transferred to the petitioner along with all rights, title and interest. The petitioner as per this agreement was to retain the custody of the two minor children without any interference by the respondent.

(3.) THE parties thereafter moved a petition jointly u/s 13b (2) of the hindu Marriage Act. It was stated that the parties had settled all their disputes and claims amicably. They further stated that they have consented to grant divorce to each other without any force or undue influence and that there is not collusion between them.