J.S.KHEHAR,J - (1.) THE marriage between the petitioner Raj Rani and the respondent Rakesh Kumar Goyal was solemnised on 17.7.1987. During the subsistence of their marriage, a female child Charu was born. For reasons of disturbance in matrimonial harmony, respondent Rakesh Kumar Goyal filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 20.7.1989. The aforesaid petition was converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act by a joint application preferred by the petitioner and the respondent.
(2.) DURING the course of proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, statement of respondent Rakesh Kumar Goyal was recorded on 22.9.1995. Relevant extract of the same, which is relevant for the purposes of the controversy raised through this petition between the parties is being extracted hereunder :- "..... It has been decided between us that the custody of the child would remain with my wife and our daughter will be put in residential education institution and in that case, all the expenses would be met by me. My father Krishan Lal has also undertaken to stand surety to ensure the payment of the expenses. I have given Rs. three lacs (rupees one lac in cash and two lacs by way of Bank Draft Nos. 631603 dated 22.9.1995) towards full and final settlement of all the claims of my wife regarding maintenance, stri dhan and dowry etc. against me and nothing remains due from me on that account. We undertake to withdraw all the proceedings mentioned in para 6 of the joint petition and further undertake not to initiate any proceedings against each other except the minor's maintenance. ........." After recording statements of the parties, the District Judge, Chandigarh, dissolved the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act on 22.9.1995. Relevant extract from the judgment of the District Judge, Chandigarh, which is material for the present controversy between the parties is also being reproduced hereunder :- "...... According to the petition, the husband and wife have been living separately for the last more than six years and as there was no possibility of their resuming cohabitation, they had accordingly decided to part company and the wife had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. one lac in cash and Rs. two lacs through a Bank draft in full and final of all claims regarding dowry, maintenance, stri dhan etc. It was also stated that the father would be responsible for meeting the expenses incurred on the education of the daughter and father-in-law of the wife had undertaken to stand surety to ensure the payment of all the expenses that will incur on the minor from time to time. ......." A collective perusal of the statement made by the respondent before the District Judge as well as of the judgment delivered by the District Judge, Chandigarh, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent leads to the inevitable conclusion that the consent of the petitioner was primarily based on two considerations; firstly, the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- by Rakesh Kumar Goyal to the petitioner, and secondly, an undertaking to meet the expenses incurred on the education of their daughter Charu in a residential educational institution. It is obvious that the package offered by the respondent was accepted by the petitioner and it is therefore that the petitioner gave her unequivocal consent for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. It also needs to be mentioned that the aforesaid package way duly recorded in the judgment rendered by the District Judge, Chandigarh, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. It has been stated by the petitioner that Charu was admitted to the Public School, Nabha, in March 1997. The expenses incurred by the petitioner on Charu for the full session have been detailed in paragraph 2 of the petition wherein it is disclosed that the aforesaid expenses amounted to Rs. 48,300/-. To recover the aforesaid expenses, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 2.2.1998 on the respondent giving details of the expenses incurred on Charu for the academic session 1997-98. In the legal notice, copies of receipt of payments were also enclosed. It would be pertinent to mention that the aforesaid legal notice was despatched to the respondent by registered- acknowledgment-due post. The respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the registered communication on the acknowledgment-due card which was received back by the counsel who had despatched the aforesaid notice on behalf of the petitioner. In any case, the receipt of the notice has not been disputed by the respondent in the written statement preferred by him.
(3.) SINCE the respondent did not honour the undertaking given by him in the statement extracted above, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant petition asserting that the respondent had intentionally and deliberately played foul and had thereby rendered himself liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.;