COCP-2665-2019(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2665-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Harpreet Kaur … Petitioner Versus Tejpal Singh Bajwa … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Pranav Chamoli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG, Punjab. *** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner alleges willful disobedience of order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1). 2. In a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail filed by the respondent-husband [CRM-M-17287-2019], vide order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1), a coordinate Bench directed the respondent-husband (petitioner therein) to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for the child. The anticipatory bail application was allowed on 14.11.2019, and while allowing the same, the coordinate Bench ordered that the petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was also ordered that in case any maintenance is awarded to the said child under any other proceedings, the aforesaid amount shall be adjusted thereunder. 3. Repeated attempts to serve the respondent have failed, as it has been reported that the respondent is no longer residing at the given address. Even, the report of the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar, says so: “9. That it is submitted that SHO Police Station Rama Mandi Jalandhar was directed to visit the residence (House No. 136-B, Wazir Singh Enclave, RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.10 10:31 I am approving this document COCP-2665-2019(O&M) 2 Rama Mandi, Ladhewal, Jalandhar) of the respondent namely Tejpal Singh Bajwa and confirm the whereabouts of his. SHO visited the residence of the respondent on 15.11.2024 and found that he has not been living in his house. The house was found vacant. Subsequently, SHO contacted the area councillor Mrs. Mandeep Kaur Ward No.9, Jalandhar and asked about the respondent. She stated that the respondent has not been living at his house for the last 3 years and now his house has been locked. She further stated that she does not know where he lives now. In this regard, the relevant statement of the Councillor recorded by the SHO.” 4. In any case, once it has been ordered that compensation under other heads would be adjusted, the petitioner would be free to pursue her remedies as shall be admissible in law. No further orders are, therefore, required to be passed. 5. The instant contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Needless to assert that the petitioner, as already observed, shall be free to avail all such other remedies as shall be admissible in law for recovery of the amount to be paid to her. 7. Rule is discharged. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Vikram Aggarwal ) Judge September 8, 2025 Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RAJAN KUMAR 2025.09.10 10:31 I am approving this document