The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging his contempt conviction and subsequent directions to suspend or impound his passport for failing to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife and minor child. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan emphasized that while parties are free to explore amicable settlements, ongoing negotiations cannot be used as an excuse to avoid complying with active court mandates or to bypass current financial obligations.
Background of the Case
The appellant married Respondent No. 1, on February 15, 2004, and the couple subsequently had a son. Following marital discord, the respondent filed a petition for maintenance in November 2021 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On July 20, 2024, the Family Court directed the appellant to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 to his wife and Rs. 25,000 to their minor child, totaling Rs. 50,000 per month. The appellant was also directed to clear accrued arrears in equal monthly installments and bear the child’s educational expenses. The court ordered that any default would be viewed under the legal precedent established in Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426. Due to persistent non-payment, the respondent initiated contempt proceedings.
Procedural History and High Court Action
The appellant initially challenged the Family Court’s order via a Revision Petition but later withdrew it. In a separate proceeding, CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 96/2024, a coordinate bench of the High Court on November 18, 2024, had also directed the appellant to comply with the interim maintenance order. While the respondent managed to recover approximately Rs. 3.5 lakhs through the attachment of the appellant’s bank account, the monthly maintenance from September 2024 onwards remained entirely unpaid.
During contempt hearings before the Single Judge, the appellant, who lives and works in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), joined via video conferencing. He failed to provide any valid justification for the non-payment and refused to pay even a temporary ad-hoc amount. On April 27, 2026, the Single Judge ruled:
“In the circumstances, it is quite evident that the respondent is in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, he is held guilty of having committed ‘contempt’ as defined under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
The appellant was ordered to appear physically in court for sentencing on May 18, 2026. However, on that date, he remained in Dubai and refused to attend the physical proceedings. His counsel stated that funds for the maintenance would only be arranged if the wife agreed to an overall, omnibus settlement. Noting that this stance reflected negatively on the husband’s bonafides, the Single Judge ordered the Bureau of Immigration to suspend or impound his passport to secure his presence.
The appellant attempted to challenge this during the summer vacation in a separate appeal, which he withdrew on June 5, 2026, before filing the present appeal against both the April 27 and May 18, 2026 orders.
Arguments of the Parties and Court’s Analysis
Before the division bench, the appellant’s counsel admitted that no money had been paid under the Family Court’s maintenance order. The counsel argued that the husband was ready to pay a lumpsum settlement of Rs. 40 lakhs, but the wife was demanding a higher amount.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that while resolving disputes amicably is a matter for the parties to decide, it does not permit the suspension of existing court orders. The division bench noted:
“However, in the meantime, the Appellant cannot wilfully continue to disobey the order passed by the Family Court and refuse to pay maintenance to the wife and the child.”
The Court affirmed that the Single Judge’s directions were fully justified given the appellant’s persistent defaults and outright refusal to physically appear before the court.
Decision of the Court
Finding no merit in the husband’s appeal, the division bench upheld the previous contempt conviction and the passport actions, stating:
“The impugned orders dated 27th April, 2026 and 18th May, 2026 passed by the Ld. Single Judge are completely valid and tenable, and require no interference.”
The High Court consequently dismissed the appeal and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: AMIT BHAMBRAL v. NEHA BHAMBRAL @ NEHA SHARMA AND ORS.
Case No.: CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 and CM APPL. 40041/2026
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: July 2, 2026
