JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 09.12.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.10140 of 2021. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“6. Nonetheless, and, de hors the afore drawn proceedings, by Mandeep Kaur against the respondents concerned, and, when no material has been placed on record by the respondents, that the proceedings (supra), as become drawn by her, stand either closed or she has been granted interim maintenance. Moreover, without, at this stage, going into the veracity or otherwise of the grievances (supra) of Mandep Kaur, as truth or otherwise thereof, is to be tested in the may be subjudice proceedings (supra). Nonetheless, the respondents concerned, yet are advised to purvey to Mandeep Kaur all the necessities of ration, and, all other basic necessities, either in kind or through pro rata cash. The afore purveyings may be borne in mind by the learned Civil Court concerned, in the petition filed by Mandeep Kaur, seeking grant of maintenance to her, from the concerned. The afore made purveyings may also ultimately bring peace and harmony amongst the contesting litigants, and, may also constrain Mandeep Kaur, to withdraw proceedings for the grant of maintenance to her, by the respondents concerned, as are may be subjudice before the learned Civil Court concerned. Moreover, the respondents concerned, may also permit the petitioner to meet his sister / Mandeep Kaur, at her matrimonial home, naturally for putting decimation to the bickerings, if any, amongst al concerned.”

2. A perusal of the above reproduced order passed by this Court shows that no direction is given to any of the parties. Therefore, the present contempt petition is not maintainable. Despite having due knowledge of the legal position, the petitioner chose to file present contempt proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any justifiable or tenable grounds of law. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

3. Normally when there is apparent contempt by the official respondents, this Court imposes costs to be deducted from their salary for non-compliance of the order. The present case is the set example of the litigants, who are in the habit of blaming/targeting the official respondents unnecessarily. A perusal of the file shows that there is no disobedience by the respondents. Rather there is inter se dispute between the parties.

4. It is well settled that contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is clearly made out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the directions issued by this Court.

5. Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others”, while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022”. The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as under:-

“9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and ado