You are on page 1of 1

In the case of Avneesh Sood (supra), disputes and differences had arisen between the

parties after a decade of their marriage and they had executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) agreeing inter alia to seek divorce by mutual consent. The said
MOU had recorded several terms and conditions for a one time settlement wherein the
husband had agreed to pay a quantified amount to the wife, in installments. There were
other terms and conditions laid down in the MOU, relating to the custody of their minor
child. After execution of the MOU, the parties had filed a joint petition for dissolution of
marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Act and had incorporated
therein the terms and conditions of settlement, which were duly accepted by the court
during the First motion proceedings. Later on, when the wife refused to cooperate with
the husband for moving the Second motion petition under Section 13B(2) of the Act, he
filed a contempt petition against the respondent/wife on the ground that she had
withdrawn from the undertaking given by her to the court at the time of filing the
petition for mutual divorce under Section 13B(1) of the Act before the Family Court.
Relying on the decision of the Single Judge in the case of Shikha Bhatia (supra) and of the
Karnataka High Court in the case of S. Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju & Anr.
reported as 2004 (5) Kar. LJ 338 (DB), the learned Single Judge held the wife guilty of
contempt of court for having breached the undertaking given to the learned ADJ in the
First motion divorce proceedings under Section 13B(1) of the Act and issued a notice to
show cause to her as to why she should not be punished for contempt of court,
particularly when she had derived benefits from the husband in terms of the MOU.

The appellant placed reliance on the case of R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri
Jayakrishna [AIR 2001 SC 1056]. This Court had observed in this decision that custody
orders by their nature can never be final; however, before a change is made it must be
proved to be in the paramount interest of the children.

You might also like