Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Petitioner Found Instigating Visitation Drama, Not Victim of Contempt: Delhi HC Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Wife

09 June 2025 3:37 PM

By: sayum


In a judgment Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by a woman alleging violation of visitation terms by her estranged husband. The Court, after reviewing video evidence presented by the petitioner herself, found that it was the petitioner and her associates who provoked the incident. The Court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for abuse of legal process.

The decision was delivered in Poonam Bisht v. Samrat Singh Rawat & Ors., CONT.CAS(C) 1741/2023, by a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar.

The contempt petition arose from a dispute related to child visitation rights. The petitioner alleged that her former husband, Samrat Singh Rawat, violated the visitation conditions laid down in a Family Court order dated 07.10.2023. The specific terms barred the respondent from being accompanied by family or making videos during visitation.

However, a subsequent order by the High Court on 09.11.2023 had allowed the respondent to meet the children along with his parents at the petitioner’s office on the occasion of Diwali (12.11.2023). The petitioner, citing unavailability of her office due to a pooja, arranged a different venue and demanded the respondent bear the booking cost—despite no such direction from the Court.

In the contempt plea, the petitioner alleged that during the visitation, the respondent caused disruption, harassed her and her colleagues, tried to get her fired, and filmed the incident in violation of Court directions.

After hearing submissions, the Court asked the petitioner to show the video recordings she had made of the incident. Upon viewing the footage, the Bench noted: “In fact, it was the petitioner and persons along with her who were instigating the respondent no. 1 into reacting in the way he did.”

The Court further recorded that the respondent’s father (Respondent No. 2), now deceased, had requested the petitioner’s group to allow peaceful visitation, but was mocked in return.

“The respondent no. 2 even tried to request the persons accompanying the petitioner not to mock the respondent no. 1… this request, as is apparent from the video, was again mocked at.”

These observations effectively reversed the narrative of the contempt plea.

Cost Imposed for Misusing Legal Forum:

Terming the petition meritless, the Court not only dismissed it but imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner. The amount is to be split equally:

₹25,000 to be paid to the respondent;

₹25,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks.

The judgment is a stern reminder that courts will not entertain contempt pleas based on manipulated narratives, especially when the evidence reveals an attempt to weaponize the judicial process.

“We, therefore, find no merit in the present contempt petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” — Delhi High Court

Date of Decision: 28 March 2025

Latest Legal News