Disposed¶9

Ritika Juneja v. Anshuman Narang

Delhi HC15 Oct 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1537/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CONT.CAS(C) 1537/2025; Ritika Juneja v. Anshuman Narang; Delhi High Court; contempt of courts; Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; Article 215 Constitution of India; C.C. Act rare and exceptional cases; remarriage after appeal; wrong statement before Court; affidavit venue of marriage; marriage April 2024; Family Court divorce decree 23.12.2024; appeal pending; delay of 228 days condonation; exemption application allowed; petition disposed; liberty to file application in pending appeal; Anil Kshetarpal; Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar; 15.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings not initiated; Petitioner given liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending Appeal, if not already filed; exemption application (CM APPL. 64846/2025) allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Ritika Juneja Vs Anshuman Narang — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India should be initiated against the Respondent on the allegations that he remarried after the Appeal was taken up for hearing and made a wrong statement before the Court regarding the venue and timing of his marriage.

¶7

Court's answer

Jurisdiction under the C.C. Act (Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) is to be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases; it is not an ordinary remedy that can be invoked for every error or mistake.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Bench did not find it appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings; the Petitioner/Appellant was given liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending Appeal, if not already filed.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.), by order dated 15.10.2025 in CONT.CAS(C) 1537/2025 (Ritika Juneja v. Anshuman Narang), declined to initiate contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India sought by the Petitioner following dissolution of her marriage by a Family Court judgment and decree dated 23.12.2024 ('Impugned Judgment'). Observing that the jurisdiction of the C.C. Act is required to be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases and is not an ordinary remedy for every error or mistake, and that at most the Petitioner alleged the Respondent had remarried after the Appeal was taken up for hearing and had made a wrong statement before the Court, the Bench disposed of the Petition along with the pending applications (including condonation of 228 days' delay), granting liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending Appeal, if not already filed.

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1537/2025

¶4

RITIKA JUNEJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

ANSHUMAN NARANG .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nitin Mehta, Mr. Arpit Rawat, Mr. Chirag Singh and Ms. Yukta, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 15.10.2025

¶11

CM APPL. 64846/2025 (For exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application stands disposed of.

¶14

CONT.CAS(C) 1537/2025 and CM APPL. 64845/2025 (Delay of 228 days in filing the Petition)

¶15

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for initiation of proceedings under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as „C.C. Act‟] read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

In substance, the marriage of the parties was dissolved by a judgment and decree of the Family Court on 23.12.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟].

¶17

The Appellant is stated to have filed an Appeal against the

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 16/10/2025 at 14:08:57

¶20

Impugned Judgment under incorrect heading on 24.01.2024, which was for the first time listed before the Bench on 09.02.2024. The Respondent entered appearance and disclosed that he has already remarried. The Court put him certain questions with regard to venue of marriage, etc., and the Respondent was called upon to file affidavit. It is alleged that in the affidavit the venue of the marriage was different and in fact the marriage took place in April 2024.

¶21

The jurisdiction of the C.C. Act is required to be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases. It is not an ordinary remedy which can be invoked for every error or mistake. 7. At the most, the Appellant is alleging that the Respondent has re-married after the Appeal was taken up for hearing and the Respondent has made wrong statement before the Court. Additionally, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is pending. 8. In such a circumstance, this Bench does not find it appropriate to initiate the contempt proceedings, however, the Appellant shall have liberty to file appropriate application in the pending Appeal, if not already filed.

¶22

The present Petition, along with pending application, is disposed of.

¶23

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶24

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. OCTOBER 15, 2025 /sp/sh

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 16/10/2025 at 14:08:57

Ritika Juneja v. Anshuman Narang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritika Juneja v. Anshuman Narang

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

Sakshi Vs Hemant Kumar

Nitin Bakolia Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (T)Hrough Its Commissioner & Anr.

Raghubir Singh Arora Vs U P Singh & Anr.

Shri Nand Kishor Sehgal Vs Madhu Sehgal

Sheetal Joshan Roy Vs First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc & Ors.

Usha Devi Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

C R Park (M and P Blocks) Residents Welfare Association Vs Dilkhush Meena

Ramesh Chander Vs Himanshu Yadav

Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited Vs Ge Power India Limited & Anr.

Rohit Sareen & Ors. Vs Subhash Chand Sareen & Anr.

M/S G.S. Foils Vs M/S Arihant Foils Pvt. Ltd.

Akash Sharma Vs Megha

Focus Energy Ltd. & Ors. Vs Gail (India) Limited & Ors.

Karan Kohli Vs Aditi Kakkar