In a firm rebuke to the misuse of court processes in matrimonial disputes, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by a woman against her estranged husband and in-laws, imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on her for making exaggerated and misleading allegations regarding a court-ordered child visitation. The Court found that it was the petitioner herself, along with her companions, who provoked the conflict and disrupted the visitation, rather than the respondent.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar in CONT.CAS(C) 1741/2023, and emphasized that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked based on distorted narratives intended to harass the other party.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Ms. Shambhavi, approached the High Court alleging that her estranged husband had violated terms of a visitation order passed by the Family Court-02, South-East, Saket, on October 7, 2023. That order allowed the husband to meet his children under specific conditions—namely, that he must not be accompanied by any other family members and was prohibited from taking photos or videos of the meeting.
Subsequently, the High Court itself modified the arrangement through an order dated November 9, 2023, permitting the father to visit the children on the occasion of Diwali (November 12, 2023), along with his parents, at the petitioner’s office. However, the petitioner later informed the respondent that her office would be unavailable due to festive rituals and unilaterally arranged an alternative location in a nearby co-working space, asking the respondent to bear the cost of booking.
Allegations in the Contempt Petition
The petitioner accused the husband (respondent No. 1) of intentionally creating a disturbance during the visitation, intimidating her and her family members, and recording videos and taking photographs in violation of court directions. She further claimed that the respondent’s behavior was calculated to damage her professional standing and “shatter her confidence.”
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner:
Advocate Ms. Shambhavi submitted that the respondent’s conduct amounted to willful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions. She claimed that he entered the visitation site with the clear intention to provoke, record without consent, and cause mental harassment.
For the Respondents:
Advocates Ms. Shreya Singhal, Ms. M. Keditsu, and Ms. Kushagra Singla, appearing for the respondents, denied all allegations. They contended that the visitation was conducted strictly in accordance with the High Court’s November 9 order, which expressly allowed the respondent’s parents to accompany him. They argued that the petitioner’s demand for payment of venue charges was never court-mandated and that her version of events was not only exaggerated but misleading.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined the petition and noted several inconsistencies. Importantly, the petitioner had not submitted any video evidence to support her claims. However, during the hearing, she was asked to present the video recordings on her laptop.
After viewing the footage, the Court made a crucial finding:
“It was the petitioner and persons along with her who were instigating the respondent No. 1 into reacting in the way he did.”
The Bench observed that contrary to the petitioner’s allegations, the respondent’s father (respondent No. 2) was seen making a sincere attempt to de-escalate tensions and requested the petitioner’s group to allow the visitation to proceed peacefully. His appeal, however, was mocked and disregarded.
The Court also clarified that its order dated November 9, 2023, did not require the respondent to pay for any venue. The petitioner’s unilateral decision to charge him for the alternate meeting space had no legal backing.
“There was no direction for the respondent No. 1 to bear the cost of the venue,” the Court stated, rejecting the petitioner’s financial demand as baseless.
Final Judgment and Costs Imposed
The Court held that the contempt petition was devoid of merit, amounted to an abuse of legal process, and was filed with an intent to harass the respondents rather than uphold any genuine grievance.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed a total cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, with the following directions:
- ₹25,000 to be paid to the respondent (her estranged husband),
- ₹25,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks from the date of the order.
