Delhi High Court Admonishes Husband For Contemptuous Conduct In Making Derogatory Statements Against Wife's Counsel; Directs Him To Tender An Apology
The Delhi High Court stated that lawyers should advise clients towards resolution of disputes rather than fuelling allegations against each other.
The Delhi High Court admonished a husband for his contemptuous behaviour in making derogatory statements against his wife's counsel, while directing him to tender an apology and imposing costs of Rs. 1 Lakh.
The Court stated, “Lawyers ought to advise clients towards resolution of disputes rather than making and fueling allegations against each other. Allegations in such matters could be taken extremely personally which could lead to clients misbehaving with opposing counsels, though the same cannot be justified in any manner.” The wife sought criminal contempt proceedings against the husband under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held, “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. In such cases, human tendencies cannot be ignored by the Court. 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. Peace and tranquility are extremely necessary.”
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Dewan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Court had previously found the husband guilty of criminal contempt in a judgment dated 29th July, 2024, due to his behavior in Court, including hurling abuses and making aspersions against the wife’s counsel and the Court. The Court noted the husband’s persistent contemptuous behavior and the obstruction of justice.
In the subsequent hearing on sentencing, the wife’s argued for the maximum punishment of six months imprisonment, citing the husband’s wilful misconduct and obstruction of justice, particularly regarding the delay in the wife’s maintenance application. The wife also argued that the husband’s apology was not bona fide.
Court’s Observations
The High Court remarked, “While awarding sentence, the Court has to take into consideration various aspects including the nature of the contempt which is committed, the extent of contempt as also the mitigating factors, if any.”
“The reason why the Respondent has been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is due to the comments passed by him against the counsels of the Petitioner and his misbehavior in Court. Various incidents had taken place during the Court proceedings both in the High Court and in the Family Courts, though, this Court is of the opinion that the entire blame cannot be put on the Respondent,” the Bench stated.
“During the course of the proceedings in this contempt it appears that the Respondent may have understood the impact of his conduct. He has not attempted to justify his conduct on the last date of hearing. There are various obligations on the Respondent including payment of maintenance to the Petitioner as well as payment of school fee of his minor children which he has to adhere to,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Bearing in mind the background of this matter and the remorse expressed by the Respondent, as also the mitigating circumstances such as his ailing father, 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…Apart from the admonishment and the apology, the Respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Petitioner.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2376-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Pinky Anand; Advocates Rosemary Raju, Adharsh Kothari and Sitwat Nabi
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjay Dewan; Advocates Anish Dewan, Garima Verma, Ayush, Kashish Jain, Liza M. Barwah and Harshita Goel