IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-568-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 09.02.2026 Jai Kumar Daga ...Petitioner Versus Nandni Devi Daga ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. Present petition has been filed seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’), alleging deliberate and willful violation of the undertaking given by the respondent-wife before the Family Court, Faridabad, during the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the HMA’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the parties jointly filed a petition seeking divorce with mutual consent and made a statement before the Family Court on the First Motion. Thereafter, both sides appeared before the Family Court and suffered a statement on the Second Motion, whereby, the respondent-wife received a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- on account of past, present and future maintenance as well as permanent alimony. It was specifically stated by the respondent-wife that in case she solemnizes second marriage, she will return the custody of the child to the petitioner (father of the child). It is contended that the respondent has solemnized second marriage, but she did not hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner. A legal notice dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) was served upon the respondent, however, she still did not hand over custody of the child. As such, the respondent has violated the statement made before the Family Court, which prima facie constitutes a civil contempt.

3. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book.

4. The proceedings were conducted by the Family Court in a petition under Section 13-B of the HMA (Annexure P-1). Statements (Annexures P-2 & P-3) were also recorded before the Family Court.

5. As per the provisions of Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Family Courts Act’), the Family Court has the power to execute the decrees and orders passed by it. The Section is reproduced as under:-

“18. Execution of decrees and orders.—

(1) A decree or an order [other than an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)], passed by a Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the execution of decrees and orders.

(2) An order passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. 7 (3) A decree or order may be executed either by the Family Court which passed it or by the other Family Court or ordinary civil court to which it is sent for execution.”

6. A bare perusal of the above extract makes it amply clear that the Special Enactment, i.e. the Family Courts Act contemplates the procedure for execution of decrees and orders passed by a Family Court, since any decree or order passed by the Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or an order of a Civil Court and therefore, shall be executed in the same manner as is prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Moreover, when the Special enactment lays down the procedure for execution of the decrees and orders passed by the Family Court, invoking the General law will not be a proper course to follow. It is a settled principle that Special law will prevail over the General law. Since there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to proceed in the matter by initiating the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act.

7. It is also a settled principle of law that even if this Court finds that a party has committed contempt of court, cont