Court Finds Wilful Disobedience of Settlement Terms

The Bombay High Court has ordered the detention of a Maharashtra police constable in civil prison for six months for deliberately failing to pay the remaining Rs 20 lakh of a Rs 28 lakh settlement agreed with his wife towards alimony, residence and their child’s maintenance.

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh, while hearing a contempt petition filed by the woman, observed that the constable had shown “scant regard” for court orders by repeatedly failing to honour his payment commitments. The court rejected his financial difficulties as a defence, noting that he had entered into the settlement with knowledge of his existing financial obligations.

The couple had signed consent terms on June 14, 2024, under which the husband agreed to pay Rs 28 lakh in five instalments. In return, the wife agreed to withdraw several pending proceedings against him. The settlement was accepted as an undertaking to the court on August 7, 2024, and their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent on November 25, 2024.

However, the constable paid only Rs 8 lakh, leaving Rs 20 lakh outstanding. Despite a contempt charge being framed against him in April 2026, he failed to clear the balance even after receiving a final opportunity in August to pay within 14 days.

Financial Difficulties No Defence, Says Court

The constable argued that he was unable to pay because of outstanding loans, including a personal loan and a home loan, which had substantially reduced his take-home salary. He claimed that his financial circumstances meant his conduct could not be considered deliberate disobedience.

The High Court rejected this argument, pointing out that the loans had been taken before the settlement was executed. The constable had been aware of his financial position when he undertook to pay the agreed amount and had not sought modification or recall of the settlement on grounds of financial inability.

The court also noted that he had neither expressed remorse nor tendered an unconditional apology despite being warned about the contempt proceedings.

Holding that his conduct amounted to wilful, intentional and deliberate disobedience of court orders, Justice Deshmukh concluded that imposing a fine would not serve the ends of justice.

The court directed the registrar to issue a warrant for his detention within one week and ensure its execution during the following week.