Disposed¶26

Shikha Singh v. Rahul Kumar Srivastava

Delhi HC19 Sept 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act Sections 2/10/12; contempt petition disposed as not pressed; non-compliance of settlement deed/order dated 01/06/2024; Shikha vs Rahul, Mt. Case No. 82/2022, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi; respondent undertaking to file FIR quashing petition within 7 working days, taken on record; documents and affidavit signed and executed; liberty to revive contempt petition if undertaking dishonoured; pending applications disposed; Delhi High Court; Amit Sharma, J.; 19.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No contempt proceedings initiated; petition disposed of as not pressed and pending applications disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive the petition if the respondent fails to honour his on-record undertaking (filing of FIR-quashing petition within 7 working days). ¶26

Shikha Singh Vs Rahul Kumar Srivastava — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the Respondent for wilful and intentional non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the settlement deed/order dated 01/06/2024 in Case titled 'Shikha vs Rahul' (Mt. Case No. 82/2022) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, with coercive action, heavy costs and litigation costs as prayed for.

¶13

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the present contempt petition as not pressed at this stage, the petitioner's learned counsel having elected not to press it after the respondent executed the requisite documents and affidavit and gave an on-record undertaking to file the FIR-quashing petition within 7 working days.

¶26

Key takeaways

The petitioner will be at liberty to revive the present contempt petition in case the respondent's undertaking is not honoured.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, CONT.CAS(C) 1424/2025, Amit Sharma, J., order dated 19.09.2025: contempt petition under Sections 2/10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by Shikha Singh against Rahul Kumar Srivastava, praying for initiation of contempt proceedings for wilful and intentional non-compliance of the settlement deed/order dated 01/06/2024 in Case titled 'Shikha vs Rahul' (Mt. Case No. 82/2022) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, together with coercive compliance action and imposition of costs. At the hearing, the respondent, present with counsel (Alok K. Rai, Neetu Rai, Rahul Yadav) and in person, signed and executed the requisite documents and affidavit for filing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR, and undertook on record to file such petition within 7 working days; petitioner's counsel (Siddharth, with petitioner in person) thereupon chose not to press the petition. Held/dispositioned: petition disposed of as not pressed; pending applications disposed of; petitioner expressly left at liberty to revive the petition if the undertaking is not honoured. The Court made no adjudication of the merits of the alleged contempt.

¶1

$~101

¶2

IN THEHIGHCOURTOF DELHIATNEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1424/2025

¶4

SHIKHA SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Siddharth, Advocate alongwith petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

RAHUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Alok K. Rai, Ms. Neetu Rai and Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate. Respondent in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 19.09.2025

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petition under Sections 2/10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act seeks following prayers:-

¶13

“a) Initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent for willful and intentional non-compliance of terms and conditions of the settlement deed/ order dated 01/06/2024 in Case titled as “Shikha vs Rahul” bearing Mt. Case No. 82/2022 pending before Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi;

¶14

b) Pass appropriate orders/directions as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice, including coercive action for securing compliance of the settlement/agreement;

¶15

c) Impose heavy costs upon the Respondent for deliberate and willful disobedience of the terms agreed before this Hon’ble Court;

¶16

d) Award the Petitioner costs of the present litigation, including legal expenses incurred in pursuing this contempt petition; and

¶17

e) Pass such other and further order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶18

Respondent appeared on advance notice alongwith counsel and

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 11:51:19

¶21

submitted that he is willing to sign the requisite documents for filing of petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

¶22

Accordingly, the matter was passed over.

¶23

On the second call, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that relevant documents and affidavit have been signed and executed by the respondent.

¶24

Respondent submits that the petition for quashing of FIR will be filed within a period of 7 working days. The said statement is taken on record.

¶25

In view of the above, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition at this stage.

¶26

The present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

Needless to state that the petitioner will be at liberty to revive the present petition in case the undertaking is not honoured by the respondent.

¶29

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶30

SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 /sn/yg

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 11:51:19

Shikha Singh v. Rahul Kumar Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shikha Singh v. Rahul Kumar Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Vijay Swarup Lau Vs Dr. Raghuram Aaygiri Registrar Delhi Bhartiya Chiktsa Parishad

Tauqir Alam Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.

Sharad Raj Vs Anjali Raj

Jagdish Singh Sudan Vs Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited and Ors.

Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) through Lr Smt Veena Vs Dharmender & Anr.

Thomas Abraham & Anr. Vs Shri Harmeet Singh Kalka & Ors.

Dhanraj and Ors. Vs Mukesh Vats and Anr.

Habibur Rahman Vs Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Dr Vijay Swarup Lau Vs Dr. Raghuram Aaygiri Registrar Delhi Bhartiya Chiktsa Parishad

Sharad Raj Vs Anjali Raj

Madan Singh Gusain Vs Union of India and Ors.

School of Physical Education and Sports Development, Opjs University Vs Dr. Shailesh Naranbhai Zala and Anr.

S3G Technology Llc Vs Sourcetrace Systems India Private Limited & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.