Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held that the conduct of a litigant amounting to criminal contempt cannot be justified under any circumstance, even in a contentious matrimonial dispute. The Court, while noting the respondent’s apology and mitigating circumstances, admonished him for his conduct, directed him to tender an oral apology in open court, imposed costs of ₹1,00,000, and discharged the contempt notice subject to compliance.

The petitioner, the estranged wife, initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition arose out of incidents during the pendency of matrimonial litigation, including multiple allegations of abusive conduct and disruption of court proceedings by the respondent, the husband.

Also Read: SEBI Cannot Revisit Concluded Issues Under Same Cause of Action; Principle of Res Judicata Applies : Supreme Court

The petitioner submitted that despite ongoing litigation, including an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim maintenance, the respondent had repeatedly obstructed proceedings. The application fixed for hearing on 15th September 2023 remained undecided due to the respondent’s disruptive conduct in court, which allegedly caused the presiding Family Court judge to recuse and transfer the matter.

Allegations included verbal abuse, commotion during court hearings, and baseless accusations against the petitioner’s legal counsel and even against the judiciary. The Court had earlier, through a judgment dated 29th July 2024, found the respondent guilty of criminal contempt.

In defense, the respondent claimed frustration stemming from the breakdown of his marriage, financial stress, and concern for his aged father. Through an affidavit dated 10th August 2024, he tendered an apology and expressed willingness to purge the contempt. The respondent detailed steps taken toward compliance, including payments for maintenance and school fees in accordance with court orders.

The Court reviewed multiple ongoing proceedings between the parties, including civil and criminal cases. Several petitions, including under the Domestic Violence Act and Hindu Marriage Act, were instituted by the petitioner. The respondent also initiated proceedings involving property and custody under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the respondent’s apology lacked sincerity and that his affidavit contained contradictory statements—defending his actions while simultaneously offering an apology. It was argued that the respondent's past and repeated misconduct, coupled with continued vilification, undermined the judiciary and merited the maximum punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

In contrast, the respondent’s counsel contended that the apology was genuine, detailed payments made under judicial directions, and cited family obligations as mitigating factors. The respondent urged that he was the sole caregiver to his aged and unwell father and responsible for supporting his minor children.

Upon considering the parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court reserved the matter for orders on 25th February 2025.

The Court held that although frustration in matrimonial disputes can lead to emotional outbursts, conduct crossing legal boundaries remains impermissible. The Bench observed:

“This Court is conscious of the frustration and exasperation of parties, especially, in matrimonial disputes as their entire personal life comes to a standstill and they also experience emotional trauma.”

It noted the role of legal professionals and litigants in maintaining decorum:

“Lawyers also have a great responsibility in such matters not only towards their own client but also towards the Court and towards the society as well.”

Addressing the respondent’s behavior, the Bench stated:

“Hurling abuses in Court would not be permissible.”

The Court acknowledged that efforts were made to comply with court directions post-verdict:

“Though there has been some delay on part of the Respondent, but it appears that the Respondent has broadly complied with the settlement terms.”

Referring to the apology affidavit, the Bench observed:

“During the course of the proceedings in this contempt it appears that the Respondent may have understood the impact of his conduct.”

The affidavit filed on 10th August 2024 was quoted, wherein the respondent stated:

“I completely and absolutely apologise for my conduct found culpable by this Hon’ble Court and I have been brought to realise that such behaviour is unacceptable under any circumstance.”

The respondent acknowledged the gravity of his actions and requested the Court’s indulgence:

“I unabashedly, totally and unconditionally apologise for all and any offence caused to the dignity of any court. I undertake not to exceed the Bounds of proper behaviour in the future.”

The Bench recorded that, although the conduct was egregious, the respondent had shown remorse during the last date of hearing:

“The Court could notice a change in the behavior of the Respondent.”

It ultimately concluded that the matter warranted a cautionary approach, given the specific facts and background.

The Court directed that the respondent shall appear in person and tender an oral apology to the learned counsel for the petitioner in open court. It stated:

“This Court admonishes the Respondent to ensure that in future such conduct is not repeated and directs him to tender an oral apology to the ld. counsel for the Petitioner in front of the Court.”

It further directed the respondent to continue his financial obligations: “The Respondent shall ensure that he shall continue to pay the maintenance and the school fee of his minor children as directed by the competent Court.”

In addition to the oral apology, monetary sanctions were imposed: “Apart from the admonishment and the apology, the Respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Petitioner.”

Also Read: "Jurisdiction of Review Can Be Derived Only from Statute": Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Waqf Board CEO's Reversal, Directs Petitioners to Waqf Tribunal

The Court cautioned that any future misconduct would be judged in light of the present conviction:

“It is also observed by the Court that in future, if there is any misconduct or misbehavior by the Respondent, the conviction in this contempt petition would also be liable to be considered by the Court, in any future proceedings.”

“Subject to the adherence to the above conditions, the contempt notice is discharged.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rosemary Raju, Mr. Adharsh Kothari, Ms. Sitwat Nabi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anish Dewan, Ms. Garima Verma, Mr. Ayush, Ms. Kashish Jain, Ms. Liza M. Barwah, Ms. Harshita Goel, Advocates along with the Respondent in person

Case Title: Shikha Kanwar v. Rajat Kanwar
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2376-DB
Case Number: CONT.CAS.(CRL) 15/2023
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Amit Sharma

[Read/Download order]