Case Summary: Rupali Gupta V. Rajat Gupta, Cont. Case (C) No. 772/2013

Published On: December 22nd 2025

Authored By: Harsha Gurunath Darpe

Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala

Case Title : Rupali Gupta V. Rajat Gupta, Cont. Case (C) No. 772/2013
Citation : CONT. CAS(C) 772/2013
Court : High Court of Delhi (India)
Bench : Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Ms. Justice Deepa Sharma
Date of Judgment : 15 May, 2018
Relevant Statues : Section 13B, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Article 215 Constitution of India,1950.

Introduction

In the case of Rajat Gupta v. Rupali Gupta, Cont. Cas. (C) No. 772/2013, Rajat Gupta started contempt proceedings against Rupali Gupta during a divorce case under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple had previously agreed to a settlement and made promises before the Family Court when they applied for a divorce by mutual consent. However, when disagreements happened, a single judge referred the case to a higher bench of the Delhi High Court.

The court combined this case with others to answer four important legal questions: (a) whether a person can change their mind about the divorce after the second motion, (b) if breaking a promise made in court counts as contempt, (c) if the Family Court can still grant a divorce if one party backs out at the second stage, (d) and what rules should be followed when writing settlements and promises to avoid confusion and future problems.

Facts of the Case

The parties, married on July 16, 2005, under Hindu rites, have two children born in 2006 and 2008. They lived together until August 23, 2013. The appellant/wife is a qualified Chartered Accountant since 2003, while the respondent/husband is an Electrical Engineer running his own business. The respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming Rs. 3,00,000 per month for herself and the children, along with Rs. 1,10,000 towards litigation expenses.

The Family Court awarded Rs. 22,900 per month for the children’s maintenance but declined to grant interim maintenance to the wife, considering her sufficient means to support herself. The wife appealed this order challenging the assessment of incomes of both parties and the denial of her maintenance claim.

Issues Involved

Whether the appellant/wife, being a qualified Chartered Accountant with alleged sufficient means, is entitled to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Whether the income assessments of the appellant/wife and respondent/husband by the Family Court were erroneous and liable to be set aside.
The extent of maintenance obligation towards the children and the spouse in light of their earning capacities.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent acknowledged his responsibility to maintain the children and did not challenge the maintenance awarded to them.
He objected only to the grant of interim maintenance to the appellant/wife, asserting that as a qualified Chartered Accountant, she had sufficient means to support herself.

Petitoner’s Arguments

The Petitioner contended that her income prior to separation was wrongly accessed, claiming the earned only Rs. 7,000/- per month, contrary to the court’s finding of a minimum Rs. 40,000/- monthly income.
She argued the respondent’s income was underestimated by the Family Court, asserting it to be not less than Rs. 8,00,000/- per month instead of Rs. 1,10,000/-
Filled a written note auditing the respondent’s income and submitted receipts for children’s tuition and transport fees, along with a list of reasonable expenses she expected the husband to cover, without fully disclosing her own assets and income.

Judgment

The Division Bench, while looking at Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and previous court decisions, said that both parties must still agree at the second stage of the divorce process. They explained that a divorce cannot be approved just based on the first request if one person decides not to agree anymore.

The court also made it clear that even though people can’t be forced to agree, refusing to follow a settlement that’s part of a court order or a promise made to the court could be considered contempt if the refusal is intentional. However, not every failure to follow through is contempt; the court will look at the situation and the person’s intentions.

To avoid such issues, the Bench also created clear rules for writing matrimonial settlements and affidavits. These rules require being specific about the parties involved, the amount of money, the time frame, payment details, and what happens if someone breaks the agreement. This makes sure that promises are clear, can be enforced, and are less likely to lead to legal fights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court’s decision set out three important rules that must be followed: first, both people must still agree at the second stage of a Section 13B divorce, and if one person changes their mind, the court cannot make a final decision; second, any agreements or promises made and accepted by the court are legally binding, and breaking them on purpose can lead to being held in contempt of court; and third, agreements about marriage should be clearly written, including who is involved, when things happen, how money is handled, and what happens if someone doesn’t follow through, to make sure they can be enforced and avoid future problems.

Obiter Dicta

The court mentioned in passing that mediation and settlements in family matters help reduce conflict, but they don’t work as well when the agreements are unclear or when someone deliberately backs out. It said courts should check if a person really wants to change their decision or if they are just trying to get out of their promises.

However, the court also suggested that family courts should require written statements or promises that clearly explain the terms, what happens if someone breaks the agreement, and which court has authority. This would make the divorce process more certain and easier to enforce.

Final Decision

The Division Bench answered the reference questions and gave clear instructions to Family Courts on how to handle mutual consent divorce cases, especially when it comes to writing settlement agreements and affidavits of undertaking. They said that if someone on purpose breaks a promise made in court, it could be considered contempt, but this has to be checked carefully in each case and isn’t automatic.

They also reminded that real mutual agreement at the second motion stage is required by law, and a divorce can’t be given if one person changes their mind after agreeing.