‘Stand until court rises’: Tripura High Court orders woman to stand in courtroom until end of day in contempt case

Acting as a tough taskmaster in a contempt proceeding over a matrimonial dispute, the Tripura High Court recently ordered a woman to stand in the courtroom until it had risen for the day.

A division bench of Justices T Amarnath Goud and Biswajit Palit was hearing the contempt plea against a woman for non-compliance with the terms of the divorce settlement and publicly made allegations against the judges who passed the order.

“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 passed on December 11 2025, said.

The court added that addressing the media and issuing press statements is not a remedy that can be appreciated by this court.

“As a measure of punishment, this court directs that 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,” the bench ruled.

The case stems from the 2023 divorce settlement, under which the wife had given an undertaking to the court to transfer several properties to her two daughters via gift deeds.

In exchange, the husband agreed to purchase a new flat for her and provide an enhanced monthly maintenance allowance.

It is alleged that the wife had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the decree of divorce, and did not execute the property transfer.

On failure to comply with the conditions, the husband filed the contempt proceedings against his wife for wilful breach of the undertaking given before the court by the wife.

The counsel for the petitioner husband argued that in 2025, the wife held a press conference, making unfounded allegations against two judges of this high court who were earlier dealing with the case, which was telecast on various news channels, and a press release under her own signature was also issued.

They further argued that the deed, which was required to be executed in the name of the wife, could not be executed as she was not present at that time.

The counsel appearing for the wife submitted that his client is repentant for her conduct and seeks an unconditional apology to the court, and she agreed to cooperate with the petitioner in the execution of the deed of purchase of a flat in her name by the petitioner from the concerned promoters.

Referring to the records, the court said that it is evident that the contemnor made statements alleging that the then Justice Arindam Lodh was not performing his judicial duties properly, was indulging in favouritism, and had passed biased judgments with an ulterior motive, thereby hampering the spirit of justice.

The court found the woman guilty of the allegations and decided to punish the contemnor.