The Tripura High Court directed a woman to remain standing in the courtroom until the end of the day as a penalty in a contempt of court case. The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justices T. Amarnath Goud and Biswajit Palit during proceedings linked to a long-standing family dispute.
The contempt proceedings arose after the woman failed to comply with a divorce settlement. Under the agreement, she had promised to transfer certain properties to her two daughters through gift deeds. In exchange, her former husband was to provide her a new flat and increase her monthly maintenance.
Her ex-husband filed a petition claiming she had not fulfilled the property transfer as agreed. Instead, she held a press conference and publicly criticised two judges who had earlier handled the case. She also issued a signed press release repeating these accusations.
The bench expressed serious concern over her conduct. The judges reminded her that disputes over court orders must be addressed legally, not through media statements. They emphasized that public accusations against judges are not acceptable and cannot replace proper legal procedures.
As a consequence, the court ordered that she must stand in the courtroom until it adjourns for the day. The bench noted that this measure was non-punitive and accounted for her gender, aiming to correct behaviour without resorting to harsher punishments.
The case demonstrates how courts can use creative, non-custodial methods in contempt proceedings when a litigant disregards orders and makes public allegations. Her lawyer stated that she has agreed to apologise unconditionally and cooperate to complete the property transfer.
This unusual order has drawn attention across the legal community and the public, highlighting the seriousness with which courts treat contempt and the importance of following judicial directives.
