Dismissed

Ankita Singh v. Anand Vikram Singh

Delhi HC23 Aug 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1322/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition for alleged breach of an undertaking in a matrimonial settlement MoU of 2017, under which the respondent obtained anticipatory bail. The court held the petition barred by limitation due to unexplained delay of over 2054 days and dismissed it without prejudice to other remedies.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed without prejudice, petitioner free to pursue other legal remedies.

Ankita Singh Vs Anand Vikram Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~79

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 23^rd August, 2024

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 1322/2024

¶5

ANKITA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod K. Tiwary & Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ANAND VIKRAM SINGH .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶10

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CM APPL. 48309/2024, CM APPL. 48310/2024 (EXMP).

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The applications stand disposed of. CONT.CAS(C) 1322/2024 & CM APPL. 48308/2024

¶14

The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for wilful disobedience and breach of statement/undertaking given by him recorded in the settlement agreement dated 23.10.2017 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in pursuance of the statement made by the petitioner recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding [“ MoU ”] dated 23.10.2017, the respondent was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2017 in Bail Application No. 2364/2016, It is submitted that the respondent despite getting such benefit, did not comply with the terms and

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Digitally Signed By:PRAMODCONT CAS (C) 1322/2024 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:27.08.2024 20:57:12

¶19

conditions of the MoU and the lump sum amount of Rs. 20 lacs agreed upon, towards full and final settlement of claims of the petitioner with regard to maintenance (past, present and future) and permanent alimony besides istridhan and her rights arising out of marriage, were not paid.

¶20

It is submitted that on respondent reneging from his undertaking, the petitioner pursued an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“ CPC ”] for setting aside ex parte decree of divorce passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in petition bearing No. 662/2013, which was allowed but the same has been challenged by the respondent before the Allahabad High Court, which matter is still subjudice .

¶21

In the said backdrop, the petitioner is unable to explain the delay of more than 2054 days in filing the present petition for contempt. The plea that cause of action arose for filing the present petition on dismissal of her application for cancellation of bail filed before this Court in Crl. M.C. 5619/2018 vide order dated 01.12.2023, does not cut much ice. The agreement stipulated compliance in a time bound manner, and unfortunate as it may seen, the petitioner sat over her legal right for a very long time. Therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for the present petition being barred by limitation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue other remedies against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Digitally Signed By:PRAMODCONT CAS (C) 1322/2024 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:27.08.2024 20:57:12

¶25

Consequently, the present contempt petition along with the application stands dismissed without prejudice.

¶26

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

¶27

AUGUST 23, 2024

¶28

Sadiq

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

Digitally Signed By:PRAMODCONT CAS (C) 1322/2024 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:27.08.2024 20:57:12

Ankita Singh v. Anand Vikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Singh v. Anand Vikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uppal Housing Private Limited Vs Seema Rani & Ors. & Ors.

Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs Mr. Vijay Karan Verma & Ors.

Gurinder Singh Vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

M/S Air Pro Styles Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Rahul Narula Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ritu Adhikari Vs Himanshu Joshi

Smt. Bhawana Sharma Vs Director Welfare Department

Mrs Mohinder Kaur through Gpa Holder Malti Gupta Vs Mr Devender Arya Dcp and Anr.

Uppal Housing Private Limited Vs Seema Rani & Ors. & Ors.

Residents Development and Welfare Group Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Moorgate Industries India Private Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Priya Bhatia Vs Amit Bhatia

Dinesh Bhagat Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.