Ambala trader gets 6-month jail for refusing alimony
Upholding the majesty of law, the Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday ordered police to take an Ambala businessman straight to the Burail Model Jail from the court itself for defaulting in his commitment to the court of paying. ` 17 lakh alimony to his divorced wife'.chandigarh Updated: Mar 27, 2014 10:23 IST
Upholding the majesty of law, the Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday ordered police to take an Ambala businessman straight to the Burail Model Jail from the court itself for defaulting in his commitment to the court of paying.
` 17 lakh alimony to his divorced wife'.
Holding Rohin Kumar guilty of contempt of court after finding his act mischievous, justice Mahesh Grover not only ordered that he be jailed for six months, but also fined him ` 1 lakh, to be paid to his wife, a Panchkula resident, within two months.
“Undertakings given by a party and affidavits filed in court are sacrosanct and have to be respected. They have a deep reflection on the solemnity of proceedings in law. If courts were to condone conduct of breach in undertakings then it will lead to erosion in the majesty of law which courts can ill-afford,” said justice Grover.
In November 2012, Rohin Kumar, embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife, entered into a settlement of the grant of decree of divorce and a full and final payment of
` 17 lakh to his wife. In the settlement, it was agreed that husband and wife would take back all the complaints and cases pending with the Panchkula police and the court.
Appearing for the wife, advocate Tarun Vaid informed the court that thereafter, Rohin Kumar furnished an affidavit in the court that he would pay ` 17 lakh to his wife after selling a plot at Manav Chowk, Ambala City. Though the plot was sold, but the husband defaulted in his commitment made to the court and his wife as the proceeds were utilised for the marriage of his sister.
Finding the explanation offered by Kumar, that he has no means to pay off the wife, not reliable and worthy of acceptance, the court remarked that it is not understandable as to why he committed himself to a settlement which he could not honour.
“Implicit in the entire conduct of the contemner is a clear attempt to mislead the court, obstruct the course of justice and subvert the legitimate process of law to defeat the rights of the wife flowing from the settlement and undertaking given to this court,” the court added.