Disposed¶16

Megha Chadha v. Himanshu Sahni

Delhi HC16 Apr 2026CONT.CAS(C)/248/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court contempt case (CONT.CAS(C) 248/2026, Justice Sachin Datta, 16.04.2026): non-filing of Second Motion Petition under Section 13B(2) Hindu Marriage Act despite settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024 and prior order of 09.04.2025 in CONT. CAS(C) 1555/2024; respondent's undertaking to file within one week; petition disposed of with revival liberty on non-compliance. Keywords: Section 13B(2) HMA, settlement agreement, Second Motion, contempt, mutual consent divorce, revival liberty.

What did the court decide?

Undertakings recorded: Second Motion Petition to be filed within one week; parties to appear before the concerned Court, take necessary steps, and fully adhere to the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024; petitioner at liberty to revive the petition in case of non-compliance by the respondent. ¶16

Megha Chadha Vs Himanshu Sahni — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent failed to adhere to the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024 and the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in CONT. CAS(C) 1555/2024 by not filing the Second Motion Petition under Section 13B(2), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶9

Court's answer

During the course of hearing it was agreed that the Second Motion Petition, on which the respondent had already appended signatures and executed an affidavit in support thereof, shall be filed within one week.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner and respondent, present in Court, undertook to appear before the concerned Court and take necessary steps to ensure requisite orders are passed pursuant to filing of the Second Motion.

¶11

Key takeaways

It was undertaken that all necessary steps would be taken to fully adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement, with the parties cooperating with each other for that purpose.ratio¶15
No further orders were considered required in the present petition, which was accordingly disposed of.ratio¶16
In case of any non-compliance by the respondent, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive the present petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, CONT.CAS(C) 248/2026 — Megha Chadha v. Himanshu Sahni — Order of Justice Sachin Datta dated 16.04.2026. Contempt petition complaining of non-adherence by the respondent to a settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024 and to an order dated 09.04.2025 passed in CONT. CAS(C) 1555/2024, in that the Second Motion Petition under Section 13B(2), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had not been filed. During hearing the parties agreed that the Second Motion Petition, already signed by the respondent and supported by his affidavit, would be filed within one week; both parties, present in Court, undertook to appear before the concerned Court, take necessary steps for requisite orders, fully adhere to the settlement terms and cooperate. The petition was disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive it in case of any non-compliance by the respondent.

¶1

$~103

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 248/2026 MEGHA CHADHA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. along with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

HIMANSHU SAHNI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nitin Gupta, Adv. along with respondent in person.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 16.04.2026

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that the settlement agreement dated 04.04.2024 executed between the parties as also the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in CONT. CAS(C) 1555/2024, has not been adhered to by the respondent inasmuch as the Second Motion Petition under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has not been filed in terms thereof.

¶10

During the course of hearing, it is agreed that the Second Motion Petition, on which the respondent has already appended signatures and executed an affidavit in support thereof, shall be filed within a period of one week from today.

¶11

The petitioner as also the respondent who are present in Court undertake to appear before the concerned Court and take necessary steps to ensure that requisite orders are passed pursuant to filing of the aforesaid Second Motion.

¶12

It is further undertaken that all necessary steps shall be taken to fully

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 20/04/2026 at 14:40:38

¶15

adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement, and that the parties shall cooperate with each other for that purpose.

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. The same is accordingly, disposed of. 6. In case of any non-compliance by the respondent, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive the present petition.

¶17

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶18

APRIL 16, 2026/ cl

¶19

This is a digitally signed order. 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 20/04/2026 at 14:40:38

Megha Chadha v. Himanshu Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megha Chadha v. Himanshu Sahni

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

Rajan Vs Shyam Sundar Kandpal

Mohd Zakir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Rajan Vs Shyam Sundar Kandpal

Jagdish Singh Vs Vijay Kumar

Raj Kumar Dhingra Vs M/S Royalty Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Narender Yadav Vs Robin Baleja, Chief Executive Officer (Ceo), Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

Pappu Vs Robin Baleja, Chief Executive Officer (Ceo), Delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs Dgp Tihar Jail

Rajan Vs Shyam Sundar Kandpal

Mohd Zakir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Rajan Vs Shyam Sundar Kandpal

Sgnco Green Resources Ltd. Vs Shri Lav Agarwal

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Babita W/O Braham Prakash

Sh Raj Kumar Vs District Magistrate/District Collection Officer & Anr.