Dismissed¶26

Mrs. Sonal Umesh Gyanchandani @ Bhakti Nilesh Ailani v. Nilesh S/O. Kishor Ailani

Contempt – application for dismissal of contempt petition at interim stage

Bombay HC7 Apr 2025CP/149/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Civil Application (CAN) No.85 of 2024 in Contempt Petition No.149 of 2024; dismissal of contempt petition; premature filing; cause of action not arisen; breach of mediation settlement; joint petition under Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act; Family Court No.3 Nagpur; Criminal Appeal No.263/2023; order dated 30.08.2024; interim stage; framing of charge; Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.; decided 06/03/2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the respondent; his application for dismissal of the contempt petition was rejected, and Contempt Petition No.149 of 2024 was directed to be listed on 07.04.2025 for framing the charge. ¶26

Mrs. Sonal Umesh Gyanchandani @ Bhakti Nilesh Ailani… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the respondent; his application for dismissal of the contempt petition was rejected, and Contempt Petition No.149 of 2024 was directed to be listed on 07.04.2025 for framing the charge.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's civil application for dismissal of the contempt petition - on the ground that the cause of action mentioned in para 11 of the petition has not arisen and the petition was filed at a premature stage - should be allowed or rejected.

¶13

Court's answer

Both parties were under obligation to comply with the terms and conditions agreed in the settlement before the Mediator, and from the order passed by the Family Court as well as by this Court it is apparent that it is the respondent who has not complied.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

At the interim stage it cannot be concluded that there is no contempt; accordingly the respondent's application for dismissal of the contempt petition cannot be accepted.

¶23

Key takeaways

The respondent's application is devoid of merits and therefore liable to be rejected.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt - application for dismissal of contempt petition at interim stage - matrimonial dispute settled through mediation with terms to file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1951 before the Family Court, Nagpur on or before 5th February, 2024, breach attracting contempt liability - respondent-husband filed Civil Application (CAN) No.85 of 2024 in Contempt Petition No.149 of 2024 seeking dismissal of the petition as premature, contending the cause of action had not arisen and that the petitioner's pursis dated 7th May 2024 showed she was predetermined to file - parties married 11.07.2008, separated since March 2015; disputes including pending Criminal Appeal No.263/2023 settled in mediation - roznama of Family Court No.3, Nagpur shows the joint petition was filed on 23.09.2024 but the respondent failed to file the affidavit and sign the petition despite the order of this Court dated 30.08.2024 directing appearance before the Family Court on 05.09.2024 at 11.00 a.m. - held, at the interim stage it cannot be concluded that there is no contempt - application rejected; contempt petition listed on 07.04.2025 for framing the charge (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.).

¶1

(1) 83.CAN.85.2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAN) NO.85 OF 2024 IN

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.149 OF 2024

¶5

Sonal Umesh Gyanchandani @ Bhakti Nilesh Ailani Vs.

¶6

Nilesh s/o Kishor Ailani

¶7

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. P. A. Abhyankar, Counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. N. K. Ailani – in person – respondent.

¶10

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 06/03/2025

¶11

Application is for dismissal of contempt

¶12

petition.

¶13

This application is filed by the respondent for dismissal of the contempt petition on the premise that i.e. cause of action, as mentioned in para 11 has not arose. It is further submitted by the respondent, who appeared in person that pursis filed by the Counsel of the petitioner along with the petition on 7^th May 2024, itself suggests that petitioner was predetermined to file instant case, and therefore, most possibly eagerly waiting for time in notice to expire, the application is filed. He submitted that the contempt petition is filed at premature stage, and therefore, it is to be dismissed.

¶14

(2) 83.CAN.85.2024

¶15

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settlement terms both parties have to perform their part in pursuance of the said settlement. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this petition, but the respondent has not performed his part and thus, he has contravened and not abided the terms and conditions, which are imposed while settling the dispute, and therefore, the contempt petition is rightly filed. He further submitted that at this stage, the Court cannot come to the conclusion whether there is a contempt or not. The opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner as well as the respondent to adduce the evidence. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶16

Heard both the sides. Perused the entire record. There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 11.07.2008 and they have been staying separate since March 2015 owing to differences between them. The period since the year 2017 has witnessed numerous litigation between the parties one amongst them was pending i.e. Criminal Appeal No.263/2023. Considering the matrimonial dispute between the parties, this Court referred the matter for mediation and by the efforts of the Mediator, the terms were finalized and as per the wishes of the petitioner and respondent, the matter was settled. As per the terms of said settlement, it was agreed between both parties and both parties shall file a petition under

¶17

(3) 83.CAN.85.2024

¶18

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of decree and divorce by mutual consent. For the said purpose, both parties shall file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, on or before 5^th February, 2024 before the learned Family Court at Nagpur and shall obtain decree of divorce in order to dissolve their marriage solemnized on 11.07.2008. It was further agreed between the parties that in case of breach/violation or disobedience of any of the terms of this agreement, the party breaching the term shall be liable for contempt proceeding and the party aggrieved shall be entitled for status-quo including initiating necessary to legal proceedings before the competent Court of law, for restoration of proceeding which are withdrawn in terms of this agreement.

¶19

Thus, in view of the said terms of the agreement, both parties have to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1951. The roznama of the Family Court No.3, Nagpur is placed on record which shows that on 23.09.2024 the petition was filed and firstly came before the Family Court and it was referred for the report of the marriage Counsellor thereafter certain objections were raised in the said petition. Petitioner No.1 present before the Court made a statement that on the next, he will remain present and will comply the same. However, after sufficient opportunity, he has not complied, not filed an affidavit and also not

¶20

(4) 83.CAN.85.2024

¶21

signed the petition. On several occasions, this Court as well as the Family Court has directed him to remain present before the Family Court for compliance. But it is apparent that he has not complied with the same. The order passed by this Court on 30.08.2024 also shows that the respondent has shown his willingness to accompany the learned Counsel of the petitioner and sign the relevant documents and cooperate to the learned Counsel to file the application, and therefore the directions were given to the parties to appear before the Family Court on 05.09.2024 at 11.00 a.m. for taking appropriate steps to by this petition and to comply with the necessary compliance, but the said compliance was also not complied by the present respondent. It is specifically agreed by both the parties that in case of breach/violation or disobedience of any of the terms of this agreement, the party breaching the terms shall be liable for contempt proceeding and the party aggrieved shall be entitled for status-quo including initiating necessary to legal proceedings. Thus, both the parties were under obligation to comply with the terms and conditions which they have agreed in terms of settlement before the Mediator. From the order passed by the Family Court as well as from the order passed by this Court, it is apparent that it is the respondent who has not complied with the same. At that stage, at the interim stage, it cannot be

¶22

(5) 83.CAN.85.2024

¶23

concluded that there is no contempt and the contempt application is to be dismissed.

¶24

In view of that, the above observations, the application of the respondent is devoid of merits and therefore, liable to be rejected. In view of that, I proceed to pass following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The application is rejected.

¶27

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.149 OF 2024

¶28

Matter be listed on 07.04.2025 for framing the charge.

¶29

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶30

Sarkate

¶31

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/03/2025 11:24:03

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Contempt Petition No.149 of 2024 filed by the petitioner (pursis filed along with the petition on 7th May 2024) alleging breach of the mediation settlement; the respondent's civil application seeks its dismissal as premature. This is a pending petition rather than a decided order.¶13
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur · 07/05/2024
Prior proceeding
Parties married on 11.07.2008 and have been staying separate since March 2015 owing to differences between them.¶16
Prior proceeding
Numerous litigation between the parties since 2017, including Criminal Appeal No.263/2023 which was pending; considering the matrimonial dispute, this Court referred the matter for mediation and the matter was settled on finalized terms.¶16
Prior proceeding
Settlement terms required both parties to file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on or before 5th February, 2024 before the learned Family Court at Nagpur to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent dissolving the marriage solemnized on 11.07.2008.¶18
Prior proceeding
The settlement further provided that in case of breach/violation or disobedience of any of its terms, the breaching party shall be liable for contempt proceedings and the aggrieved party entitled to status-quo and legal proceedings.¶18
Prior proceeding
Roznama of Family Court No.3, Nagpur shows the joint petition was filed on 23.09.2024, was referred for the marriage Counsellor's report and objections were raised; despite sufficient opportunity the respondent did not comply, did not file an affidavit and did not sign the petition.¶19
Prior proceeding
By order dated 30.08.2024 this Court noted the respondent's willingness to accompany the petitioner's counsel, sign the relevant documents and cooperate, and directed the parties to appear before the Family Court on 05.09.2024 at 11.00 a.m. to take appropriate steps.¶21
Prior proceeding
Despite the above directions and opportunities, the required compliance was not done by the respondent.¶21

Mrs. Sonal Umesh Gyanchandani @ Bhakti Nilesh Ailani v. Nilesh S/O. Kishor Ailani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sonal Umesh Gyanchandani @ Bhakti Nilesh Ailani v. Nilesh S/O. Kishor Ailani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harishchandra S/O Harikishan Agrawal vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Neelam Janardhan Rachalwar and Another vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur and Others

Shon S/O Baburao Tangde and Another vs the Vice Chancellor/ Registrar, Gondwana University, Gadchiroli and Others

Valmik S/O. Panjabrao Hiwanj vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Finance, Mumbai and Ors.

Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Talodi, Thr. Secretary, Talodi, Nagbhid vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi and Ors.

Raju Baburao Pisal vs the Honble Registrar (Admin.), Honble Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur and Ors.