Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010187942026 2026:GAU-AS:12894 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/464/2026 SRI ANUPAM DOLEY SON OF SRI MANIK CHANDRA DOLEY, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 26, ANANDAPUR LAKHI MANDIR, PURBACHAL NAGAR PATH, HENGRABARI, P.S. - DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 06, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS SMT KABYASHREE GOSWAMI DAUGHTER OF LATE GAGAN CHANDRA GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 25, BYE LANE NO. 2, DILIP HUZURI ROAD, SARUMOTORIA, P.S. - DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 05, DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : ANZIR ALI MIR, MR J BORAH,H BORUAH,A NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 07.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. J. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present contempt petition is filed under Section 10 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience Page No.# 2/7 of the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 3 cum JMFC Kamrup (Metro) in connection with Misc. (DV) Case No. 194/2023. 3. The parties are husband and wife. Several proceedings arising out of their matrimonial discord, including those under Section 498A IPC, under Section 294 IPC, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and under the Guardians and Wards Act, were pending between them before different jurisdictional Courts. 4. In an attempt to resolve the dispute amicably, the matter was transferred to mediation by the learned JMFC cum Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 2), Kamrup (Metro). After several rounds of mediation proceedings, on 04.04.2026, the petitioner and the respondent had amicably settled all their disputes and differences before the District Mediation Center, Kamrup (Metro). Accordingly, a settlement agreement was executed between the parties in the presence of the mediator. 5. Following the aforesaid settlement, the learned Mediator submitted the mediation report before the concerned Magistrate, and thereafter the learned Magistrate, under order dated 02.07.2026, directed both parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. 6. The petitioner contends that he has complied with his obligations under the settlement. According to him, he had already purchased a two-bedroom flat of the respondent's choice and made it available as residential accommodation/permanent alimony. 7. He further claims to have paid the agreed amount to the respondent and has regularly paid Rs 15,000/- towards the minor child's maintenance, in Page No.# 3/7 addition to bearing the child's other expenses. 8. It is alleged that, despite such compliance, the respondent has declined to accept the residential accommodation and has failed to perform her other obligations under the settlement, including taking steps in respect of other pending proceedings. 9. The principal question before this court is whether the alleged non- compliance with the order dated 02.07.2026 falls within the court's contempt jurisdiction. 10. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the nature of settlement. This is not a case of a private agreement that has remained outside the proceedings before the Court proceedings. The parties were referred to mediation in the pending proceeding; the settlement was arrived at; the mediation was placed before the learned Magistrate; and thereafter, the judicial order was passed directing the parties to comply with the settlement. 11. Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023, specifically provides that a mediated settlement agreement signed by the parties and authenticated by the mediator is final and binding and, subject to Section 28, it is to be enforced in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a judgment or decree passed by the court. 12. It has been argued that since the original proceeding was one under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2007, the learned Magistrate was not exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore had no power to execute the settlement as a decree. 13. In the opinion of this court, such a submission cannot be accepted in the Page No.# 4/7 manner in which it is argued. 14. It is true that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate originated under the Domestic Violence Act, but the settlement in question was reached through mediation and was thereafter made the subject of a judicial direction dated 02.07.2026. 15. The fact that the original proceeding was under the Domestic Violence Act cannot, by itself, render the court powerless to give effect to a settlement duly reached in terms of the Mediation Act 2023. The source of original jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the nature of the particular order passed have to be kept distinct. The learned Magistrate was not adjudicating afresh on the parties' matrimonial claims when the settlement was reached and placed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate was giving effect to the settlement arrived at between the parties through the mediation process and directed the parties to abide by it. 16. Further, Section 27 of the Mediation Act does not make the enforceability of a mediated settlement dependent upon the Court that originally entertained the dispute. The provision itself gives a mediated settlement the status of an instrument enforceable as a judgment or decree. 17. Thus, the fact that the original proceeding was before a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Domestic Violence Act does not, by itself, render the remedy of enforcement unavailable. 18. The other significant question is whether the petitioner can invoke this Court's contempt jurisdiction to enforce the obligations set out in the settlement reached between the petitioner and the respondent. 19. In the present case, the petitioner seeks enforcement of several Page No.# 5/7 obligations arising from the settlement. The obligations are also reciprocal. The petitioner asserts that he has performed his part by providing the agreed accommodation and making the agreed payment. He further alleges that the respondent has failed to perform her part by not accepting the accommodation and failing to take the steps contemplated under the settlement. 20. Whether the accommodation offered is in complete conformity with the settlement; whether the petitioner has fully discharged his obligation; whether the respondent has illegally refused to perform her part; whether the respondent was bound to accept the accommodation in the circumstances stated by the petitioner; and whether the reciprocal obligations of the parties have been performed are matters relating to the enforcement of the settlement itself. Such questions are not ordinarily required to be adjudicated in a summary contempt proceeding. 21. It is apposite to record here that the Supreme Court has consistently drawn a distinction between contempt jurisdiction and execution jurisdiction. Where the grievance is essentially non-compliance with an executable judgment, decree, or order embodying rights between the parties, the ordinary remedy is execution, and contempt jurisdiction ought not to be used merely as a means of executing a decree. The execution proceeding provides a more appropriate forum where the parties may lead evidence and have their respective claims examined, and contempt jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for execution. 22. The same principle applies with greater force where the rights and obligations sought to be enforced arise from a mediated settlement and are statutorily made enforceable as a judgment or decree. 23. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rama Page No.# 6/7 Narang versus Ramesh Narang and another, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 114, also does not improve the petitioner's case. This Court is conscious that a breach of a clear and unequivocal undertaking or judicial direction may, in an appropriate case, attract contempt jurisdiction. However, the existence of such jurisdiction does not mean that every allegation of non-performance of a settlement agreement must be treated as contempt. The Court has to examine the nature of the obligation and the remedy available for its enforcement. 24. In the present case, the order dated 02.07.2026 essentially directed the parties to comply with the settlement dated 04.04.2026. The present grievance is, in substance, that the respondent has not performed the obligation undertaken by her under that settlement. The petitioner is therefore seeking enforcement of the settlement through contempt jurisdiction. In my view, that is not the proper use of contempt jurisdiction. 25. Therefore, the fact that the learned Magistrate directed compliance with the order dated 04.04.2026 does not render every alleged breach of the settlement a matter of contempt. At the same time, this Court is not required to hold that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with or give effect to the settlement merely because the original proceeding was under the Domestic Violence Act. 26. The appropriate course, therefore, is to enforce the mediated settlement in accordance with the applicable statutory mechanism. Section 27 of the Mediation Act expressly provides for such enforcement in accordance with the CPC and in the same manner as a judgment or decree. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find it appropriate to Page No.# 7/7 exercise its contempt jurisdiction in the present matter. 28. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy for enforcement of the mediated settlement dated 04.04.2026 and the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 3 cum JMFC Kamrup Metro in connection with Misc. (DV) Case No. 194/2023, in accordance with law. 29. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion as to whether the petitioner has in fact complied with his obligations or whether the respondent has committed any breach of the settlement. Those questions are left open to be considered in the appropriate enforcement proceedings, and nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the rights and contentions of either party in such proceedings. JUDGE Comparing Assistant