Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1958 (RAJ)

SURESH KUMAR PAREEK v. SAVITA PAREEK

2014-12-02

J.K.RANKA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. This D.B. Civil Contempt Petition, has been filed for enforcement of an oral agreement, entered between the applicant-husband and the respondent-wife and accepted in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4835/2009, filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. 2. On 12.09.2012, a Division Bench, hearing D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4835/2009- Smt. Savita Pareek Vs. Suresh Kumar Pareek & Ors., accepted the compromise arrived at between the parties orally in Court, under which the husband agreed to pay Rs.7,25,000/- towards permanent alimony in two equal installments, and that the wife agreed, on such payment, to vacate the premises owned by her husband, within six months. With the consent of the parties on such agreement, the Civil Misc. Appeal was disposed of. 3. It is submitted that the applicant-husband has complied with his part of the agreement by paying a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- vide two account payee cheques of Rs.3,62,500/- each, which have been encashed by the respondent-wife. She has, however, not kept her part of the promise in the agreement, and has not vacated the room occupied by her in her husband's house. 4. In this contempt petition, by an order dated 11.07.2014, this Court did not find the reasons given by the respondent-wife for not vacating the premises, to be convincing and acceptable, and allowed a week's time to her to vacate the premises. 5. On 04.08.2014, the respondent, who was present in the Court, sought some more indulgence, to be granted to her, and accordingly, after recording that the respondent has, prima-facie, committed contempt of Court, the Court granted her last and final opportunity to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the appellant, failing which contempt proceedings will be drawn against her for deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court. 6. On 19.09.2014, the Court passed the order expecting that the respondent will vacate the room peacefully, on or before 28.10.2014. 7. We are informed that despite the agreement, the room has not been vacated by the respondent so far. 8. No one appears for the respondent. 9. It is stated by the applicant that the ground of adultery was proved in the Family Court, against which the D.B. Appeal was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 8. No one appears for the respondent. 9. It is stated by the applicant that the ground of adultery was proved in the Family Court, against which the D.B. Appeal was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. In order to buy peace, the applicant agreed to pay the permanent alimony of Rs.7,25,000/-, which has been paid to her. The respondent-wife however has not kept her part of promise, and has not vacated the room as yet, causing severe mental agony to the applicant and his old parents. 10. The proceedings for civil contempt may be drawn for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court. In the present case, we find that there was no order of the Court, by which the respondent was directed to vacate the premises, owned by her husband. On 12.09.2012, this Court had accepted the oral agreement, and with the consent of the parties, disposed of the Civil Misc. Appeal. The consent was given by way of an agreement, which was arrived at between the parties in Court and was accepted by the Court. 11. We do not find any order passed or any direction was given by this Court, by which the respondent-wife was required to vacate the room occupied by her in her husband's house, within any specified period of time. If she has not kept her part of promise under an oral agreement, which was witnessed and accepted by the Court, it may amount to breach of agreement for which the applicant has a right of enforcement of agreement by bringing an action of specific performance of contract, in accordance with law. 12. The contempt proceeding for non-compliance or breach of agreement entered into between the parties in the Court, even if it was accepted by the Court, is not ordinarily maintainable, unless there was any direction of the Court, which was required to be complied with by the alleged contemnor or any undertaking given to the Court. 13. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to bring an action for enforcement of agreement in accordance with law. The notices are discharged.