Wilful disobedience of maintenance orders justifies holding contemnor/NRI guilty and impounding passport to ensure appearance.

The Appellant (husband) and Respondent No. 1 (wife) married in 2004 and have one minor child

Following matrimonial disputes, the Family Court, on 20th July 2024, directed the Appellant to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month each to the wife and child (total ₹50,000/-) plus educational expenses

The Appellant failed to comply with this order from September 2024 onwards

Consequently, the Respondents filed a contempt petition

The Ld. Single Judge, via order dated 27th April 2026, held the Appellant guilty of contempt under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, noting his residence in Dubai and lack of cogent explanation for non-payment

On 18th May 2026, the Ld. Single Judge directed the impounding/suspension of the Appellant’s passport due to his refusal to appear physically and continued wilful disobedience

The Appellant challenged these orders before the Division Bench

1. Whether the Ld. Single Judge was justified in holding the Appellant guilty of contempt and directing the impounding of his passport for wilful disobedience of maintenance orders.

2. Whether the Appellant's proposal for a lump-sum settlement can absolve him of the liability to pay court-ordered interim maintenance.

Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines the power of the High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts

Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act regarding the maintainability of appeals

Procedural principles established in Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi, 120 (2005) DLT 426, regarding the consequences of defaulting on maintenance payments

The court's inherent power to ensure the presence of a contemnor, including through the impleadment of the Bureau of Immigration and directions to the Ministry of External Affairs/Consulate General

The Court observed that despite explicit directions from the Family Court and a subsequent confirmatory order by a coordinate Bench in revision proceedings, the Appellant had not made payments since September 2024

The Court noted that the Appellant was residing in Dubai and had joined proceedings via video conferencing but "steadfastly refused" to comply with orders for physical appearance or payment of arrears

The Appellant’s argument—that he was willing to pay a lump sum for a final settlement—was rejected as a valid excuse for ongoing disobedience; the Court held that a potential settlement does not permit a party to unilaterally stop paying court-ordered maintenance

The Division Bench found the Ld. Single Judge’s decision to impound the passport necessary and "completely valid" to secure the contemnor's presence for sentencing, given his "open refusal" to submit to the court's jurisdiction

The High Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications, upholding the directions for contempt and the proceedings for passport impoundment, holding that the Appellant cannot wilfully continue to disobey the Family Court’s order under the guise of settlement negotiations