PARAMJEET KAUR vs JAGDISH SINGH — COCP/2276/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010766452026

Filing Number

COCP/27693/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

COCP/2276/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Category

34 - CIVIL CONTEMPTS ( 564 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARAMJEET KAUR

    Adv. JASMINDER SINGH THIND

  2. 2.JAGDISH SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAGDISH SINGH

  2. 2.JAGDISH SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: COCP/2276/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Paramjeet Kaur's contempt petition against the Child Welfare Committee, Patiala, finding no willful disobedience of a prior court order dated 06.2.2026. Although the Committee had not yet passed a final detailed order on child custody and welfare matters, the court held that substantial compliance steps were underway, including regular counseling of the minor children (aged 8 and 10 years) as recently as 03.5.2026, and that the Committee committed to expeditiously completing its deliberations. Justice Nidhi Gupta reasoned that contempt jurisdiction should not be invoked where authorities are actively implementing court directions and compliance is in progress. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. COCP/2276/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: COCP/2276/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Paramjeet Kaur's contempt petition against the Child Welfare Committee, Patiala, finding no willful disobedience of a prior court order dated 06.2.2026. Although the Committee had not yet passed a final detailed order on child custody and welfare matters, the court held that substantial compliance steps were underway, including regular counseling of the minor children (aged 8 and 10 years) as recently as 03.5.2026, and that the Committee committed to expeditiously completing its deliberations. Justice Nidhi Gupta reasoned that contempt jurisdiction should not be invoked where authorities are actively implementing court directions and compliance is in progress. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case