The Delhi High Court has admonished a husband for his misconduct during matrimonial proceedings and held him guilty of criminal contempt for misbehaving with the counsel representing his estranged wife. The Court directed him to tender an oral apology in open court and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 to be paid to the petitioner.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma in CONT.CAS.(CRL) 15/2023. The contempt proceedings were initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Background of the Case
The petitioner filed the contempt case against the respondent alleging criminal contempt arising from his behaviour in ongoing matrimonial litigation. The matter stems from multiple disputes between the parties, with the petitioner having instituted various proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and the Indian Penal Code.
Court’s Findings on Contempt
In a prior judgment dated July 29, 2024, the Court had already found the respondent guilty of criminal contempt for making abusive and scandalous remarks against the petitioner’s counsel and for creating disturbances in court. The Court noted:
“It is completely impermissible for the Respondent to hurl abuses in Court during proceedings… making aspersions even against the Court.”
The Family Court had earlier transferred the matter due to the respondent’s conduct, stating that the language used by him was “completely uncalled for and impermissible.”
The High Court observed that despite police complaints and earlier incidents, the respondent’s conduct remained unchanged, interfering with the administration of justice. It further recorded that the respondent had, in open court, made statements indicating an intention to dishonour financial commitments ordered by the Court.
Submissions on Sentencing
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner urged the Court to impose the maximum punishment of six months’ imprisonment, citing the respondent’s continued defiance, lack of remorse, and the financial and procedural hardship caused to the petitioner.
Reliance was placed on multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Leila David v. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 10 SCC 337] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2003) 5 SCC 376], to emphasize that an apology must be bona fide and not a tactic to escape punishment.
Respondent’s Defence and Apology
Appearing for the respondent, senior counsel submitted that the respondent had tendered an unconditional apology via affidavit dated August 10, 2024. The respondent also claimed to have made payments towards maintenance and school fees for the minor children in compliance with prior orders.
The affidavit stated:
“I humbly accept the verdict and offer my unconditional apology and contrition for my behaviour, and will purge the same in the manner thought fit by this Court… I also apologise for my inability/failure to comply with the Order dated 05.07.2024 until now, by making the aforesaid payment without further demur.”
The respondent pleaded for leniency, citing his role as the sole caregiver for his 83-year-old ailing father and financial obligations towards his children.
Court’s Order
While reiterating that the respondent’s conduct amounted to criminal contempt, the Court took note of his belated apology, financial compliance, and mitigating personal circumstances. The Court stated:
“Bearing in mind the background of this matter and the remorse expressed by the Respondent, as also the mitigating circumstances such as his ailing father, this Court admonishes the Respondent… and directs him to tender an oral apology to the ld. counsel for the Petitioner in front of the Court.”
In addition to the oral apology, the respondent was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the petitioner. The Court also warned that any future misconduct would be liable to be considered in light of the present conviction.
