BHAWNA RANI Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present contempt petition has been filed under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and intentional disobedience of order dtd. 13/8/2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FAO-1935-2020.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband on 9/12/2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar. A female child was born out of the wedlock. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri. On 2/3/2020 a decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court, Yamunanagar. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal being FAO-1935-2020 was preferred by the petitioner-wife, which was filed on 12/3/2020 as per the filing stamp of the Registry i.e. well within the period of limitation. However, thereafter, due to the situation created because of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the matter was not listed and was eventually heard on 15/6/2020 and notice was issued for 13/8/2020. The address of the respondent-husband given in the memo of parties was 'House No.41, Pooja Vihar, Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala' and the second address was given as 'working as Manager, Scale-2, Bank of India, Village Chhapra Kheri, District Karnal'. The address in the memo of parties was the same as had been given by the respondent-husband in the petition filed by him for divorce under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner-wife had also filed FAO-M-5170-2018 challenging the order dtd. 30/10/2018 passed in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which had been dismissed. In the said petition also the address of the respondent-husband given was 'House No.41, Pooja Vihar, Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala' and the respondent-husband was duly served at that address. In FAO-1935-2020, on 15/6/2020 the matter was heard and admitted, and notice was issued in the application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and on the application filed under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite. Vide order dtd. 13/8/2020 the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed. On 16/9/2020 it was directed that in case no reply was filed by the respondent-husband, punitive costs would be imposed. However, despite orders, none had put in appearance on behalf of respondent-husband. It is only in February 2021 that presence of counsel for the respondent-husband had been marked. As per the petitioner-wife, the respondent-husband is stated to have contracted a second marriage on 3/1/2021. Hence, the present contempt petition.

(3.) As noticed vide order dtd. 25/11/2021, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice of motion in the present contempt petition. The respondent-husband had put in appearance through his counsel on 11/5/2023 and subsequently reply on his behalf was filed on 18/9/2024 wherein the respondent-husband has admitted that he had solemnized a second marriage with Ms. Vandana daughter of Satish Kumar resident of Karnal on 3/1/2021.