Facts
The Petitioner, Anu Madan, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a settlement agreement by the Respondent, Deepanshu Madaan.
Source reference: p. 1, 4The dispute involves the return of original property documents, the clearance of existing loans where the Petitioner is a co-applicant, and the return of jewelry.
Source reference: p. 1, 4The Respondent submitted an affidavit outlining a timeline for debt clearance.
Source reference: p. 1-3The matter was heard on May 29, 2026, following a court holiday.
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the Respondent should be directed to adhere to specific timelines for the clearance of loans and return of property/jewelry to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement.
Source reference: p. 4-52. Whether the Petitioner must execute specific documents to facilitate the removal of her name as a “co-applicant” in loan transactions to protect her CIBIL report.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court exercised its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to enforce undertakings and settlement agreements between parties.
Source reference: p. 5Procedural provisions of Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding the filing of a Second Motion for divorce by mutual consent and the fulfillment of reciprocal obligations therein.
Source reference: p. 5The principle applied is that a breach of a court-sanctioned undertaking constitutes "egregious breach" and "contempt," warranting severe legal action.
Source reference: para. 3(vii)Reasoning
To protect the Petitioner's financial standing, the court directed the Respondent to ensure her name is removed from loan records, thereby preventing negative CIBIL impacts, provided the Petitioner executes the necessary documents.
Source reference: para. 3(iv)By tying the return of jewelry to the recording of statements in the Second Motion petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, the court ensured that matrimonial relief and property restoration remain interdependent.
Source reference: para. 3(vi)The court analyzed the Respondent's affidavit and, with party consent, established a compliance schedule ranging from July to December 2026 to ensure the gradual but complete execution of the settlement.
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Court disposed of the contempt petition by recording the mutual undertakings of the parties. It held that: (i) original property documents must be returned by July 20, 2026; (ii) loans must be cleared per the affidavit's timeline; (iii) the Petitioner’s name must be removed from all "co-applicant" loan statuses by December 15, 2026; and (iv) jewelry is to be returned during the Second Motion statement recording.
The Court warned that any breach would be treated as an egregious violation of a judicial undertaking under the Contempt of Courts Act. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for compliance reporting on July 20, September 15, and December 15, 2026.
Source reference: para. 3(vii) and p. 5Original Court PDF
Anu MadanvsDeepanshu Madaan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in