Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a contempt petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Contempt of Courts Act‘) against respondent-husband for willful and intentional disobedience of order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, a Single Judge Bench of Alka Sarin, J., held that the conduct of the husband in contracting a second marriage during pending appeal by the wife in divorce case amounted to civil contempt. It is important to note that the appeal was filed by the wife within the prescribed period of limitation and a stay had also been granted therein.
The Court sentenced the husband to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and stated that sanctity of rule of law and the brazen breach and non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court cannot be taken lightly.
Background
In the present case, the marriage of the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized in December 2012 and a girl child was born from the wedlock. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court which granted a decree of divorce in March 2020. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the wife in the same month.
However, due to the situation created because of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the matter was eventually heard in June 2020. The wife had also challenged the order passed for restitution of conjugal rights which had been dismissed.
The husband was duly served at the address he had provided; however, even when it was directed that in case no reply was filed by him, punitive costs would be imposed, no appearance was made until February 2021.
The wife alleged that he had contracted a second marriage in January 2021. Thus, she reached out to the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that it was the duty of the appellant to make inquiries regarding filing of any appeal during the statutory period of 90 days before contracting a second marriage and in case such a marriage is contracted after filing of an appeal, then it would amount to interference in administration of justice and, therefore, such individual is guilty of contempt.
The Court further stated that not only the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, but the husband also appeared to have evaded the service of notice in the appeal as he remained unserved on the very address given by him in the divorce petition filed by him. The husband categorically admitted that after the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, he contracted a second marriage. The only plea taken by him was that he was never served and that he gained knowledge about the pendency of appeal in February 2021,
Further, the Court opined that in the reply, instead of tendering an unqualified apology, the husband had tried to contest his act of solemnizing the second marriage during the pendency of the said appeal and stay having been granted therein. The Court stated that the apology in the present case could not be accepted because there was willful contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Therefore, the Court stated that the conduct of the husband in contracting a second marriage after filing of the appeal by the wife within the prescribed period of limitation and a stay having been granted therein, amounted to civil contempt. Thus, the husband was found guilty of committing the same. The Court stated that “The sanctity of rule of law and the brazen breach and non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court cannot be taken lightly.”
Further, the Court specified that the act and conduct of the husband was such that the clock could not be put back, and the damage which was ensued could not be rectified. The wife and her daughter even missed the chance to partake in any reconciliation process. Thus, the Court imposed punishment upon the husband for civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 2,000.
[Bhawna Rani v. Gurdeep Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 15279, decided on 27-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Saket Bhandari, Advocate