Failure to Save Matrimonial Home from SARFAESI Auction Is Not Automatically Contempt of Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Harvinder Kaur @ Harvinder Kaur Grover v. Tarvinder Singh Grover
Date of Judgment: 26 May 2026
Citation: COCP-1192-2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that contempt jurisdiction can be invoked only where there is wilful and intentional disobedience of a court order or undertaking. Mere inability to comply with obligations arising from a matrimonial settlement, resulting in loss of the matrimonial home through SARFAESI proceedings, would not amount to civil contempt unless deliberate and contumacious conduct is established.
Summary: The contempt petition was filed by a 69-year-old wife alleging violation of a compromise entered into between her and her husband in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The compromise, recorded in 2018, entitled her to receive ₹30,000 per month as maintenance, free medicines, payment of electricity charges, continued residence in the matrimonial home, and protection from liabilities arising out of loans taken by the husband. The husband had also undertaken to maintain the house and discharge all financial liabilities connected with it.
The dispute arose after the husband allegedly defaulted on his obligations. The wife approached the Family Court, which enhanced maintenance to ₹1 lakh per month from October 2021. However, the order was subsequently set aside by the High Court in criminal revision proceedings, while directing the parties to continue abiding by the terms of the original compromise.
The wife alleged that despite the compromise and subsequent court orders, the husband failed to discharge loan liabilities secured against the matrimonial home. As a consequence, the property was subjected to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and was eventually auctioned, depriving her of possession of the house in which she had been residing. She further alleged that the husband had alienated valuable properties and intentionally structured his affairs to evade his obligations. On this basis, she sought initiation of contempt proceedings.
The husband denied any wilful violation of the compromise or court orders. He contended that he had regularly paid maintenance of ₹30,000 per month for several years and had even complied with the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹1 lakh per month until the order was modified in revision. According to him, financial difficulties arising from enhanced maintenance obligations and accumulated liabilities prevented him from servicing the home loan, ultimately leading to enforcement proceedings by the lender.
During the proceedings, the High Court called for a report regarding the respondent’s assets and financial position. The report disclosed multiple bank accounts and properties in his name, while also revealing liabilities and prior alienations of properties. Efforts were made before the Court to arrive at an amicable settlement. The husband offered alternative residential arrangements, including rented accommodation and even purchase of another house for the wife, but she insisted upon restoration of the original matrimonial home.
The Court examined the scope of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and reiterated that contempt is not established merely by non-compliance. The crucial requirement is proof of wilful and intentional disobedience. Relying upon decisions including Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, the Court emphasized that before punishing a person for contempt, the court must be satisfied that the breach was deliberate and not the result of compelling circumstances.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the husband had substantially complied with maintenance obligations for several years and had continued making payments even during the pendency of litigation. The Court found that the explanation regarding financial constraints leading to default in loan repayments could not be outrightly rejected. It also observed that throughout the proceedings, the husband had offered alternative arrangements for the wife’s residence and had not displayed any belligerent or defiant conduct towards the court’s orders.
The Court further remarked that matrimonial disputes often involve emotional and personal conflicts and that contempt jurisdiction should not be converted into an enforcement mechanism for every alleged breach of a matrimonial settlement. Since the evidence did not establish contumacious conduct or deliberate defiance of the court’s authority, the essential ingredients of civil contempt were absent.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the respondent could not be found guilty of wilful disobedience of the compromise terms or the subsequent judicial orders. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner was not remediless and remained free to pursue any other remedies available to her in law for enforcement of her rights and redressal of grievances.