LI Network
Published on: 24 September 2023 at 00:30 IST
The Delhi High Court has clarified that a wife’s decision to withdraw her consent for a mutual divorce during the second motion, as outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with her husband, cannot be considered contempt of court.
The court emphasized that the legal approach of both the law and family courts is centered on reconciliation, and parties cannot be compelled by the family court to proceed with a divorce if it is not mutually agreeable.
The second motion petition for mutual consent divorce is typically filed when the couple returns to court for the second time after a six-month interval.
The court noted that the minimum six-month cooling-off period for filing the second motion is mandated by law with the primary objective of providing the parties with time to reconsider their decision following the first motion. There is no violation of the law if either party chooses to reevaluate their decision and withdraw their consent.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling came in response to an appeal filed by a man against a family court decision that rejected his contempt petition against his wife for not adhering to the terms of the MoU regarding mutual consent divorce.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized, “The primary objective of the matrimonial laws, be it under the marriage laws or the Family Courts Act, is to make sincere endeavor for reconciliation between the parties…The approach of the Family Courts being reconciliatory, it cannot compel the parties to take divorce if not mutually acceptable.”
In this particular case, despite the parties entering into a mutual settlement, the wife ultimately decided against pursuing the divorce during the cooling-off period, and the court affirmed that such a decision does not amount to contempt.
The court stated, “The respondent’s withdrawal of consent to come forth for the second motion for divorce by mutual consent cannot be termed as contempt. As already discussed above, the respondent-wife cannot be compelled to give her consent for the second motion, which alone is the prayer of the appellant.”
The court took note of the wife’s unwillingness to grant a divorce, as she had already filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and sought permanent custody of the couple’s minor daughter.
Consequently, the court ruled that there was no basis for finding the respondent in contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and dismissed the appeal.