Bridging the Trust Deficit: Delhi High Court Orders Mediation in Long-Standing Contempt Battle

In a pragmatic move to resolve a protracted legal impasse, the Delhi High Court has declined to pursue contempt charges against the warring Kohli brothers, opting instead to leverage the benefits of mediation to ensure compliance with a 2020 court order. Justice Jasmeet Singh identified that the root cause of the deadlock stems from a persistent "trust deficit" rather than malicious intent.

A History of Discontent

The matter involves two cross-filed contempt petitions, Cont.Cas(C) 681/2021 and Cont.Cas(C) 642/2022 . Both Parveen Kohli and Sunil Kohli had approached the Court alleging non-compliance with the order dated October 19, 2020, passed in Praveen Kohli vs. Sunil Kohli . Despite the passage of time, the parties remained at loggerheads, unable to translate the court’s original directions into concrete action.

The Court’s Approach: Why Mediation?

During the hearing on February 17, 2026, it became evident to the Bench that while some directions had been honored, others remained in limbo. Rather than imposing punitive measures under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Justice Jasmeet Singh sought a restorative solution:

> "I am of the view that none of the parties are prima-facie guilty of intentional and malafide violation of the order... The parties have not been able to effectively execute the Order dated 19.10.2020 due to trust deficit issues."

The Court ordered the appointment of Ms. Veena Ralli as a mediator to facilitate the execution of documents and ensure that the previous judicial mandate is fully realized. Both parties will share the mediator's fee of Rs. 75,000 per month equally.

Resolving Collateral Friction

A significant aspect of the Court's order involves the removal of secondary legal hurdles. The Court directed Sunil Kohli to file a petition for the quashing of FIR No. 144/2020, currently registered at Police Station Jagat Puri , with the express requirement that Parveen Kohli cooperate in this process. This instruction is a clear signal that the court views the clearing of criminal records as a necessary step for the parties to reach a comprehensive settlement.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the Court's preference for resolution over retribution when dealing with civil disputes disguised as contempt:

• "I am of the view that none of the parties are prima-facie guilty of intentional and malafide violation of the order..."
• "The parties have not been able to effectively execute the Order dated 19.10.2020 due to trust deficit issues."
• "The mediator is expected to conclude the exercise expeditiously and in any case not later than 6 months from today."

Future Implications

The contempt petitions have been disposed of with the liberty to revive them should the mediation process fail to yield a final settlement. By setting a six-month deadline, the High Court has effectively created a pressure-tested environment for the parties to resolve their grievances. This case serves as a template for how courts may utilize mediation to bypass the rigidity of contempt proceedings in family or commercial disputes where communication has completely broken down, preferring active resolution over the adversarial nature of contempt litigation.