ROSEY SAILO DAMODARAN Vs. NITIN DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No.6067/2019 (for exemption)

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein filed a divorce petition being DA No.2/2017 against the petitioner herein before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi titled as Nitin Damodaran vs. Rosey Sailo Damodaran under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('IDA'). The matter was referred to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and parties settled their disputes amicably. The respondent agreed to withdraw the divorce petition and the parties agreed to obtain decree of divorce by mutual consent. At the time of the first motion, the respondent was to make the payment of Rs.17,50,000.00 to the petitioner and at the time of the second motion, the remaining amount of Rs.32,50,000.00 was to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. He submits that despite the settlement, the respondent has not come forward to initiate, sign and file the divorce petition by mutual consent. He submits that the petitioner even contacted the learned counsel for the respondent but no response has been received. The petitioner has sent a letter dated 14.12.2018 followed by an e-mail of even date to the respondent but no response was given. He submits that the respondent has violated the undertaking given before the learned Principal Judge, Family court and for his wilful disobedience, contempt proceedings need to be initiated against him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgement of the Division Bench ('DB') of this court dated 15.05.2018 made in Reference in the Cont. Cas (C) No.772/2013 titled Rajat Gupta Vs. Rupali Gupta, 2018 249 DLT 289.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.