-
by Admin
17 December 2025 10:13 AM
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
