The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 340 of the CrPC or through appeal against a judicial order precludes the initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This ruling reinforces the principle that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and only when no other adequate remedy exists.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajiv Bhardwaj, sought initiation of contempt proceedings against his former wife, Nikita, for allegedly submitting a false affidavit before the Family Court, Jalandhar, during proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC. The petitioner alleged that the respondent falsely declared in her affidavit that she had no source of income, while in reality, she was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 26,844/-, credited to her HDFC Bank account.
Key Facts
- The respondent filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC on an undisclosed date prior to 16.01.2023
- The respondent submitted an affidavit dated prior to 16.01.2023, declaring no income
- The Family Court passed an order on 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) allowing the maintenance petition
- The petitioner obtained a bank statement from HDFC Bank (Annexure P-2) showing regular monthly credits of Rs. 26,844/- to the respondent’s account
- The petitioner claims he became aware of the false affidavit and bank statement only after the Family Court’s order was passed
- The petitioner did not challenge the Family Court’s order by appeal at the time of its passage
Procedural History
- 16.01.2023: Family Court, Jalandhar, passed order allowing maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC
- After 16.01.2023: Petitioner obtained HDFC Bank statement revealing respondent’s income
- Before filing contempt petition: Petitioner filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 151 CrPC before the Family Court, seeking inquiry into the alleged false affidavit
- 27.03.2026: Present contempt petition (COCP-5510-2025) filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the respondent’s false affidavit constituted criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it misled the Family Court and resulted in an unjust order. He argued that the deliberate concealment of income amounted to fraud upon the court and warranted punitive action.
The respondent did not file a written reply, but the Court noted the existence of alternate remedies available to the petitioner.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondent for submitting a false affidavit, with a view to punish her and set aside the Family Court’s order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner’s right to initiate contempt proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is barred by the existence of an alternate remedy under Section 340 CrPC or by the availability of an appeal against the Family Court’s order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent’s false affidavit was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Family Court, thereby undermining the integrity of judicial proceedings. He relied on the principle that any act calculated to obstruct justice constitutes contempt, regardless of whether other remedies exist. He contended that Section 340 CrPC is a procedural mechanism for inquiry and does not provide adequate redressal for the harm caused by fraud upon the court.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file written submissions. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had already invoked an alternate remedy under Section 340 CrPC and retained the right to appeal the Family Court’s order, thereby negating the necessity of contempt proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled legal position that contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary and must be invoked only when no other adequate remedy is available. It cited the judgment in Rajat Gupta and others v. Rupali Gupta and others, 2018(2) DMC 376, which held that courts may exercise discretion to drop contempt proceedings if the contemnor can demonstrate that the breach occurred under compelling circumstances or that the terms were not enforceable. The Court further relied on D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26, which affirmed that contempt proceedings are essentially between the court and the alleged contemnor, and the complainant’s role is merely to bring facts to the court’s notice.
"The court can also give directions to remedy/rectify the consequences of the actions suffered by the aggrieved party, caused on account of the breach of the undertaking/settlement agreement/consent order/decree. However, a contempt proceeding remains a matter exclusively between the court and the alleged contemnor."
The Court observed that the petitioner had already filed an application under Section 340 CrPC before the Family Court, seeking an inquiry into the alleged false affidavit. This statutory remedy provides a structured mechanism to investigate perjury and initiate prosecution if warranted. Additionally, the petitioner retained the right to challenge the Family Court’s order by way of appeal, which would permit him to raise the issue of the false affidavit and seek modification or setting aside of the maintenance order.
The Court emphasized that the Contempt of Courts Act is not a substitute for appellate or revisional remedies. To permit contempt proceedings in such circumstances would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and undermine the principle of judicial economy. The Court held that the petitioner’s failure to exhaust alternate remedies rendered the contempt petition maintainable only in theory, but not in law.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that no case for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was made out, given the availability of alternate remedies under Section 340 CrPC and the right to appeal the Family Court’s order dated 16.01.2023. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternate Remedies Bar Contempt Proceedings
- Practitioners must exhaust remedies under Section 340 CrPC or file appeals before seeking contempt for false affidavits in family or civil proceedings
- Filing a contempt petition prematurely may result in dismissal on grounds of abuse of process
- Courts will not entertain contempt where the aggrieved party has a clear statutory avenue to challenge the impugned order
False Affidavits Require Procedural Rigor
- Allegations of false affidavits must be formally raised before the court that passed the order, through application under Section 340 CrPC
- Evidence of falsity (e.g., bank statements, income records) should be submitted with the Section 340 application to trigger inquiry
- Contempt is not a shortcut to overturn adverse orders; it is a tool to uphold judicial authority, not to re-litigate merits
Judicial Economy Over Punitive Expediency
- Courts prioritize resolving disputes through regular appellate channels rather than initiating punitive contempt proceedings
- The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that no other remedy is efficacious or timely
- This judgment reinforces that contempt jurisdiction is residual, not primary, and must be invoked only when justice cannot be served otherwise
