MEENAL BHARGAVA versus NAVEEN SHARMA

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 09-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
MEENAL BHARGAVA
v.
NAVEEN SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 1606 of 2018 etc.)
MAY 09, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
s.12(1) r/w s. 12(3) – Appellant (wife) left company of her
husband (respondent) with her son – Canadian Court granted
custody of the child to the husband – Wife without complying with
the order of Canadian Court, came to India – Husband filed Habeas
Corpus petition in the High Court in India – The parties reached
settlement on certain terms – Husband thereafter filed contempt
petition seeking execution of consent terms and punishment of wife
for contempt of Court – High Court found the wife guilty of contempt
of court awarding punishment of six months civil imprisonment –
On appeal, held: High Court was not right in punishing the wife
for contempt without considering  the allegations as to whether she
fulfilled her obligations under the consent terms – Settlement as
regards resumption of matrimonial relations was reached in the
proceedings which essentially related to custody of the child –
Therefore, focus of the High Court should have been on the custody
of the child and should have restored the Habeas Corpus petition
and decided the same on merit – Order passed in contempt petition
is set aside – Habeas Corpus petition is revived which shall be
decided by High Court on merits.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. When the notice of the contempt petition was
served upon the appellant, she filed reply thereto stating that
she had taken requisite steps under the settlement and it is the
respondent who failed to get orders dated April 16, 2015 passed
by Canadian Court nullified thereby disabling her to go to America
inasmuch as she could be arrested immediately on landing in
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 521
  521
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
USA/Canada in view of the aforesaid order. She also alleged that
list of flats was not sent to her. Moreover, conduct of the
respondent, post-settlement, was not good. She had also filed
additional reply dated December 11, 2017 contending that (i)
pursuant to High Court orders, she had gone to Delhi hotel to
meet respondent and his mother but she was publicly humiliated
there, (ii) she had found that the respondent had been fired by
his employer for taking bribes and he had not been truthful to
the Government also and (iii) respondent had not paid a single
penny as maintenance. This was followed by application dated
December 19, 2017 by the appellant seeking recall of order dated
December 17, 2015.   [Para 15][530-A-C]
2. The High Court has not adverted to the important aspect
that needed attention in such a case, namely, whether it was the
appellant who was responsible for not adhering to the terms of
the consent order and thereby violated the directions issued by
the High Court in its orders dated May 09, 2017. The approach
of the High Court was to insist the appellant to adhere to the
settlement terms even at that stage and on her refusing to do so,
it arrived at a finding that she had committed the contempt of the
court’s order as the aforesaid conduct was found to be abhorrent.
It is,thus, the stubborn attitude shown by the appellant during
the hearing of the contempt petition which has weighed by the
High Court. That, was not the correct approach for punishing the
appellant for contempt of court. The contempt petition was filed
by the respondent alleging that the appellant had not fulfilled her
obligations under the consent terms and the directions given by
the High court in this behalf. It was, thus, necessary for the High
Court to discuss and consider, in the first instance, as to whether
these allegations of the respondent were correct. [Para 18][531-
D-H]
3. The consent terms on which the parties settled the matter
contained an important part of agreement, namely, both the
parties decided to live together again. This happened in the
proceedings which essentially related to the custody of child. No
doubt, when the parties agreed to resume the matrimonial
relations and decided to live again as husband and wife, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
problem of custody got automatically solved thereby as it brought
about an ideal situation where the child could have the company
of his both the parents. However, this did not materialise. Even
when a decree of conjugal rights is filed by a competent court of
law in favour of one of the spouses, such a decree cannot be
executed and the other spouse who

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.