“It is evident that the respondent (husband) has scant regard for the orders of the court and is under the impression that the orders of the court can be flouted with impunity. The whole intent appears to be to delay the proceedings by giving undertakings, which the respondent had no intention to comply with,” the court said on October 16.
The high court was hearing a contempt petition filed by the woman after her husband failed to honour the settlement reached during proceedings that resulted in their divorce by mutual consent.
Husband failed to make payment
It was noted that the estranged couple had entered into consent terms on June 14, 2024, under which the constable husband agreed to pay Rs 28 lakh as a full and final settlement of claims relating to the child’s maintenance and the wife’s alimony, maintenance and residence. It was also added that the terms were accepted as undertakings to the court in an order dated August 7, 2024.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh noted that the man expressed no remorse even after being informed that the court was likely to proceed with the contempt charge.
Under the agreement, the husband was to pay the amount in five instalments. The wife, in turn, agreed to withdraw several pending proceedings against him. The court noted that she acted on the settlement and that a decree dissolving the marriage by mutual consent was passed on November 25, 2024. However, the husband failed to honour his payment commitment. The court recorded that the total amount paid was Rs 8 lakh, leaving Rs 20 lakh outstanding.
On April 15 this year, the high court framed a contempt charge against the husband for wilfully and deliberately disobeying its order and failing to honour his undertaking. On August 14, the husband sought more time and gave a fresh undertaking to pay the balance within 14 days. The court granted him a final opportunity, but he failed to make the payment.
Story continues below this ad
Arguments
The man, through advocate G M Savagave, submitted that he was not in a position to pay the balance amount and that the contempt petition be proceeded with based on the reply affidavits filed. It was also argued that the husband had taken a loan of Rs 17 lakh and, because of a financial crisis, also borrowed amounts from friends and relatives, and the present outstanding is Rs 13.37 lakh.
The man further submitted that he had also taken a loan from the State Bank of India in 2015 and a home loan in 2018, and therefore the net salary in his hands is approximately Rs 10,000. He said that as he is financially incapable of complying with the order, the conduct is not contumacious and there is no willful disobedience.
The woman was represented by advocate Manoj Sabale.
‘No remorse, no unconditional apology’
The court held that the constable failed to establish that the non-compliance with the order dated August 7, 2024 and the disobedience of the undertaking given on August 14 this year were not “deliberate”. It added that his conduct was “contumacious” and constituted willful, intentional and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the court and of the consent terms which were executed and accepted as undertakings given to the court.
“The respondent (husband) is serving as a police constable in the state government and is well aware of the court proceedings and has consciously given undertakings to this court,” it added.
Story continues below this ad
The court found that the constable’s conduct showed “scant” regard for its orders. It also noted that he had neither expressed remorse nor tendered an unconditional apology, even after being informed that the court was likely to proceed with adjudicating the contempt charge.
“In my view, there is deliberate, wilful and intentional disobedience of orders of this court and the conduct of the respondent (constable) is contumacious. The lack of financial ability cannot be put forth as a defence to the charge of contempt in the present case for the reasons which are stated above,” the court said.
It further noted that the loans cited by the husband had been taken before the consent terms were executed. He had been aware of his financial position when he undertook to pay Rs 28 lakh, the court said, adding that he had not sought modification or recall of the settlement on grounds of financial inability.
The court pointed out that the husband is liable to be punished for willful and deliberate noncompliance with the court orders. “In my view, the imposition of a fine will not meet the ends of justice, and the respondent (husband) is directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of six months,” the court added.
Story continues below this ad
The court directed the registrar to issue a warrant of commitment and detention within one week and ensure its execution within the following week.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh noted that the man expressed no remorse even after being informed that the court was likely to proceed with the contempt charge.