In a stern move underscoring the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Tripura High Court recently ordered a woman to remain standing in the courtroom until the court rose for the day. This unusual punishment was handed down in a contempt of court case stemming from a matrimonial dispute and public allegations made against judges.
The Court's Stern Order and Reasoning
A division bench comprising Justices T Amarnath Goud and Biswajit Palit issued this directive on December 11, 2025. The bench was hearing a contempt petition against the woman for not complying with a divorce settlement and for making public allegations against the judges who had passed the earlier order.
The court expressed strong disapproval of her conduct. "This Court takes serious note of such conduct and reiterates that if any litigant is aggrieved by an order, legal remedies are always available," the order stated. It explicitly noted that "addressing the media and issuing press statements is not a remedy that can be appreciated by this court."
As a measure of punishment, the bench ruled, "...she shall stand in the court till the court rises. Considering her status as a woman and taking a lenient view, the said punishment is imposed."
Roots of the Contempt: A 2023 Divorce Settlement
The case originates from a 2023 divorce settlement. As part of this agreement, the wife had given a formal undertaking to the court to transfer several properties to her two daughters through gift deeds. In return, the husband had agreed to purchase a new flat for her and provide an enhanced monthly maintenance allowance.
However, it was alleged that the wife failed to execute the property transfers as mandated by the divorce decree. Following this non-compliance, the husband initiated contempt proceedings against her for the wilful breach of the undertaking given before the court.
Escalation Through Public Allegations
The counsel for the husband presented further arguments that aggravated the situation. They submitted that in 2025, the wife held a press conference where she made unfounded allegations against two judges of the High Court who had previously dealt with the case. This press conference was telecast on various news channels, and she also issued a press release under her signature.
The allegations, as noted by the court from records, claimed that one of the judges, Justice Arindam Lodh, was not performing his duties properly, indulged in favouritism, and passed biased judgments with an ulterior motive, thereby hampering justice.
The husband's counsel also argued that a deed required to be executed in the wife's name could not be completed because she was not present at the relevant time.
Apology and the Court's Final Decision
During the hearing, the counsel representing the wife submitted that his client was repentant for her actions and sought an unconditional apology from the court. He also stated that she agreed to cooperate with the petitioner (husband) in executing the deed for the purchase of a flat in her name.
Despite this apology, the court examined the records and found the woman guilty of the contempt allegations. The bench decided to impose the symbolic punishment of standing, emphasizing the gravity of publicly scandalizing the judiciary and disregarding court orders while legal avenues for appeal remained open.
This ruling highlights the judiciary's low tolerance for attempts to undermine its authority outside established legal channels and serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of contempt of court.
