1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2008 Anand Madhusudan Bhosale .... Petitioner. Vs. Mrs. Sanjana Anand Bhosale & Anr. . .... Respondents ..... Mr. P.D. Dalvi, Petitioner. Mr. G.R. Rege i/b S.M. Railkar, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 13 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Shri Dalvi appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri Rege appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. 2. It is stated that the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 are the husband and wife. There were disputes between them regarding the custody of a child aged seven years. The proceedings between the parties include offences alleged under Penal Code and it is urged that when the matter was before this Court, the parties put in some terms. 3. I have been taken through the terms which record a temporary arrangement with regard to custody of the minor child and the agreement that the parties would jointly apply for dissolution of their marriage by instituting the petition under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act as amended in 1976. 2 4. Such petition is not filed and therefore the allegation of the husband is that the first respondent is in contempt of the order of this court. 5. There is affidavit in reply filed in which wife states that the draft of the joint petition, seeking divorce by mutual consent, was forwarded to her which incorporated no details with regard to payment of Alimony, return of jewellery and custody of the child. Therefore, the draft could not be finalized and the joint petition was not instituted. 6. Both sides have taken me through the orders of this Court. Having perused the same with their assistance, I find that the dispute is essentially arising out of the matrimonial relationship. The dispute further relates to custody of the child. The matter reached this court and at some stage it was agreed that a joint petition be filed. There are various reasons for such proceeding being not instituted. 7. In my view, the consent terms record agreement that a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent would be filed in the court of Civil Senior Judge, Ratnagiri. However, that agreement recorded in the terms is accepted by this court. By no stretch of imagination, the agreement which is subject matter of the contempt petition can be said to be incorporating an undertaking to this Court. In any event, if it was so, it was jointly given. The husband cannot allege breach of the undertaking by the wife in such circumstances. It cannot be said that no attempts were made to file a joint 3 petition. However, the wife setting out her inability to sign the joint petition on account of its containing no stipulation with regard to custody and maintenance of the child and return of jewellery, to my mind, it cannot said to be case of civil contempt so as to call for any action under the Contempt of Court Act 1971. The contempt petition is misconceived and it is dismissed. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)