IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 107 COCP-2265-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Mukhtiar Singh . . . . Petitioner Vs. Surinder Kaur . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Mehakpreet Singh Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner [through VC]. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of the present petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent alleging deliberate disobedience of the order dated 18.09.2014 (Annexure P-3) and the subsequent orders dated 26.05.2015, 01.05.2015, besides dated 17.02.2014 &05.02.2015 (Annexures P-1, P-2, P-4 and P-5 respectively). A further prayer has been made for restoration of complaint proceedings titled ‘Bachan Singh v. Karanjit Singh and others’ and ‘Bachan Singh v. Surinder Kaur and others’, which, according to the petitioner, were withdrawn pursuant to the aforesaid orders. 2. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, who were involved in multiple civil and criminal proceedings against each other. During the pendency of CRR No.1971 of 2013 before this Court, an endeavour was made to amicably resolve the matrimonial dispute. In that context, the following order came to be passed on 18.09.2014: VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2265-2026 2026:PHHC: 091669 "The parties have filed various complaints against each other. Now the consensus has been reached between the parties that they will withdraw all the complaints/petitions filed by them against each other. Post again on 28.11.2014." 3. The aforesaid order merely recorded the consensus then expressed by the parties and deferred the matter to enable implementation of the proposed settlement. The order neither finally adjudicated the rights of the parties nor contained any unconditional or mandatory direction capable of enforcement through contempt jurisdiction. The foundation of contempt proceedings must be a clear, unequivocal and enforceable direction of the Court. A mere recording of a settlement proposal or expectation of future conduct does not by itself constitute such a command. 4. The subsequent proceedings demonstrate that the proposed settlement never fructified. Vide order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure P-1), this Court specifically noticed that although the petitioner had withdrawn the cases instituted by him, the respondent had opposed withdrawal of her complaints on the ground that the petitioner had performed a second marriage and had refused to honour the settlement. It was also noticed that despite a direction issued during mediation requiring the petitioner to deposit ₹10,000/- in the account of the respondent, the said amount was never deposited. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent had not received any amount whatsoever from the petitioner. Taking note of these facts and the conduct of the petitioner himself, the miscellaneous applications filed in CRR No.1971 of 2013 were dismissed. 5. Thus, the very basis of the interim arrangement recorded on 18.09.2014 stood eclipsed by the subsequent order dated 26.05.2015, wherein this Court recorded that the proposed settlement had failed because of the conduct attributable to the petitioner himself. Once the settlement failed and appropriate orders were passed thereafter, the petitioner cannot selectively rely upon the earlier interim order while ignoring the subsequent proceedings which explain why the consensus could not be implemented. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2265-2026 2026:PHHC: 091669 6. It is equally well settled that contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold the majesty and authority of judicial orders and not to confer substantive civil or criminal remedies upon a litigant. The extraordinary jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be invoked as a substitute for execution of rights or for restoration of proceedings, which have already been withdrawn. The relief sought by the petitioner for restoration of the complaint cases is wholly beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. 7. Apart from the above, a party who has himself failed to comply with the obligations undertaken before the Court cannot invoke the equitable and discretionary contempt jurisdiction alleging breach by the opposite side. The material placed on record does not disclose any willful or deliberate disobedience of an enforceable order on the part of the respondent. Rather, it reflects that the proposed settlement failed owing to circumstances already noticed by this Court in its order dated 26.05.2015. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground whatsoever to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent. Equally, no direction can be issued in these proceedings for restoration of the complaints earlier withdrawn by the petitioner. 9. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.08 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document