Violating Interim Injunction Against Contacting Employer and Impersonating Relatives Constitutes Wilful Disobedience and Contempt

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of an interim order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Family Court, Patiala House.

The Family Court had restrained Respondent No.1 from sending emails to the Petitioner or her employer.

Despite this, the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent sent defamatory emails and created fabricated/impersonated accounts targeting the Petitioner and her brother.

On 08.05.2026, the High Court directed Respondent No.1 to be present in person and ordered the SHO to file a status report.

On 29.05.2026, Respondent No.1 failed to appear.

The police status report confirmed that Respondent No.1 had impersonated the Petitioner’s brother using fake email IDs and filed false complaints in the USA.

Technical analysis by Google linked the fake accounts to recovery emails and mobile numbers registered in the name of Respondent No.1 and his mother.

1. Whether the actions of Respondent No.1, in sending communications and impersonating family members via email, constitute "willful disobedience" of the stay order dated 16.09.2025.

2. Whether the court should exercise its power to compel the attendance of the Respondent through coercive measures due to non-appearance.

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines "civil contempt" as the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, or order of a court.

Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empower the High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts and prescribe the Nature of punishment.

The court's inherent power to issue Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) to secure the presence of a contemnor who fails to comply with judicial directions to appear.

The Court connected the technical findings of the Investigative Officer (IO) to the restrictive conditions of the Family Court's order.

The status report provided a technical trail from Google showing that the accounts used to harass the Petitioner were linked to Respondent No.1's personal mobile number (+91 9967405810) and his recovery email address.

The Court found that these actions were not mere technicalities but a "flagrant violation" of the express prohibition against sending emails.

The Respondent’s failure to appear in Court on 29.05.2026, despite a specific direction issued on 08.05.2026, reinforced the "willful" nature of his defiance toward judicial authority.

The Court issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against Respondent No.1 to be executed via the jurisdictional SHO to compel his presence and listed the matter for orders on sentencing on 15.07.2026.