The Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal against his contempt conviction, holding that ongoing settlement negotiations cannot excuse non-compliance with binding court orders. The Court upheld directions concerning his passport and reaffirmed the obligation to fulfil maintenance-related financial responsibilities pending resolution of disputes.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband who challenged his contempt conviction and the subsequent directions to suspend or impound his passport. The Court comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan observed that although parties are entitled to pursue amicable settlement, continuing negotiations cannot be used to justify non-compliance with binding, in-force court orders or to avoid current financial obligations.
The appellant married Respondent No. 1 on February 15, 2004, and they later had a son. After the relationship deteriorated, the respondent approached the court for maintenance in November 2021 by filing an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On July 20, 2024, the Family Court directed the appellant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 25,000 per month to their minor child amounting to Rs. 50,000 per month in total. The Family Court also required him to clear the arrears in equal monthly installments and to pay the child’s education expenses. It further provided that any failure would be treated in line with the precedent in Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426.
As the husband repeatedly failed to comply, the wife initiated contempt proceedings.
ALSO READ: Wife Cannot Claim Enhanced Maintenance After Former Husband’s Death: Bombay High Court
Initially, the appellant challenged the Family Court’s interim maintenance order by filing a Revision Petition, but later withdrew it. In another matter (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 96/2024), a coordinate bench of the High Court on November 18, 2024 also directed the appellant to follow the interim maintenance order.
Though the wife succeeded in recovering about Rs. 3.5 lakhs through attachment of the husband’s bank account, the interim maintenance due from September 2024 onwards remained entirely unpaid.
During contempt proceedings before the Single Judge, the appellant who lives and works in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) participated through video conferencing. Despite this, he offered no credible justification for the non-payment and even refused to pay a temporary ad-hoc amount.
On April 27, 2026, the Single Judge held:
“In the circumstances, it is quite evident that the respondent is in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, he is held guilty of having committed ‘contempt’ as defined under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
The appellant was directed to appear in person for sentencing on May 18, 2026. However, he remained in Dubai and did not attend the physical proceedings. His counsel stated that funds could be arranged only if the wife agreed to an overall, “omnibus” settlement. The Single Judge treated this as reflective of the husband’s lack of bona fides and ordered the Bureau of Immigration to suspend or impound his passport to ensure his presence in court.
ALSO READ: Highly Qualified Wife Choosing Not to Work Can’t Seek Maintenance: Allahabad High Court
The appellant then tried to challenge the order during the summer vacation by filing a separate appeal, but he withdrew it on June 5, 2026, before filing the present appeal against both the April 27, 2026 and May 18, 2026 orders.
Before the division bench, the appellant’s counsel admitted that no payment had been made under the Family Court’s maintenance order. Counsel contended that the husband was willing to offer a lump sum settlement of Rs. 40 lakhs, but argued that the wife was demanding a higher amount.
The division bench noted that amicable resolution is for the parties to pursue, but it cannot be used to suspend or avoid compliance with active court directions. The bench emphasized that the husband could not continue disobedience while claiming negotiations were ongoing.
The Court remarked:
“However, in the meantime, the Appellant cannot wilfully continue to disobey the order passed by the Family Court and refuse to pay maintenance to the wife and the child.”
Finding no merit in the appeal, the division bench upheld both the contempt conviction and the passport-related directions, stating:
“The impugned orders dated 27th April, 2026 and 18th May, 2026 passed by the Ld. Single Judge are completely valid and tenable, and require no interference.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Title: AMIT BHAMBRAL v. NEHA BHAMBRAL @ NEHA SHARMA AND ORS. CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 and CM APPL. 40041/2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE