Contempt proceedings cannot adjudicate disputed claims requiring determination of questions of fact.

The petitioner filed contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 10 November 2017 in Chand Kaur v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., which directed the parties—brothers—to share their mother’s medical expenses equally.

The petitioner relied on various bills for medicines, medical treatment, and home-care services provided to their mother.

The respondent disputed several of these bills.

However, the respondent did not dispute the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital bill relating to the mother’s admission from 19 June 2018 to 16 July 2018.

The respondent also claimed to have paid ₹50,000 directly to the hospital towards the mother’s treatment.

The Court recorded that ₹2,36,554 had been deposited by the respondent with the Registry pursuant to an earlier order dated 2 May 2025.

Whether the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order dated 10 November 2017 by failing to bear his equal share of the mother’s undisputed medical expenses.

Whether the High Court could determine the respondent’s liability for the additional disputed medical and home-care bills in contempt proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction is concerned with enforcement of a clear court direction and cannot ordinarily be used to adjudicate disputed questions of fact or finally determine contested monetary claims.

Under the order dated 10 November 2017, both brothers were required to share the mother’s medical expenses equally.

The Court therefore confined enforcement to the undisputed hospital bill and left disputed claims to be pursued through remedies in accordance with law.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital bill was undisputed and fell within the scope of the earlier direction requiring equal contribution to the mother’s medical expenses.

Although the respondent referred to his direct payment of ₹50,000 to the hospital, the Court proceeded on the basis that ₹2,36,554 had been deposited with the Registry towards the amount payable under the earlier order.

In contrast, the remaining bills were disputed, and resolving their authenticity, necessity, or allocation would require determination of disputed facts, which was inappropriate in contempt proceedings.

The Court accordingly limited relief to the undisputed amount and preserved the petitioner’s right to pursue the remaining claims separately.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law regarding the other disputed amounts, with the Court expressly declining to express any opinion on their merits.

The contempt petition and pending applications were disposed of.