Abhishek Mahajan Vs Shilpa Mahajan — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

Abhishek Mahajan Vs Shilpa Mahajan — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of, and pending application (captioned CM APPL.28934/2026) disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh (if so warranted) upon conclusion of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and upon disposal of the respondent's application pending before the Family Court seeking modification of the order dated 10.11.2025; interim counsel-agreed contact with the minor child (half-an-hour between 04:00 and 06:00 PM every Monday and Thursday) noted in lieu of the stayed physical visitation.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's order dated 30.04.2026 in SLP (C) No.15531/2026 (staying operation of the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the order dated 21.04.2026 till 29.05.2026) and the counsel-agreed interim contact arrangement, any further orders were required in the present petition. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the circumstances (including the Supreme Court's order in SLP (C) No.15531/2026), no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the petition is accordingly disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is at liberty to file afresh (if so warranted) upon conclusion of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and upon disposal of the respondent's application pending before the Family Court seeking modification of the order dated 10.11.2025.

Key takeaways

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms, and the pending application also stands disposed of.ratio¶23
As recorded by the Court, counsel for the parties agreed that physical visitation directed by paragraph 6 of the order dated 21.04.2026 cannot proceed, and that the petitioner would instead be at liberty to contact the minor child for half-an-hour between 04:00 and 06:00 PM every Monday and Thursday; it is unclear whether the Court itself directed this arrangement or merely recorded the parties' agreement.¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sachin Datta, J., oral; decided 12.05.2026) disposed of CONT.CAS(C) 609/2026 with connected CM APPL.28934/2026, Abhishek Mahajan v. Shilpa Mahajan. An SLP (C) No.15531/2026 had been filed against this Court's order dated 21.04.2026; by order dated 30.04.2026 the Supreme Court encouraged the Family Court to decide early, preferably before the returnable date of 29.05.2026, the petitioner-wife's application of 13.04.2026 seeking modification of the Family Court order dated 10.11.2025 (together with the respondent-husband's application), and stayed till that date operation of the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the order dated 21.04.2026. The SLP is stated to be listed on 29.05.2026. Counsel for the parties agreed that physical visitation directed by paragraph 6 of the order dated 21.04.2026 cannot proceed, the petitioner instead being at liberty to contact the minor child for half-an-hour between 04:00 and 06:00 PM every Monday and Thursday. Holding that no further orders were required, the Court disposed of the petition and the pending application, leaving the petitioner liberty to file afresh once the Supreme Court proceedings conclude and the Family Court disposes of the respondent's modification application.

$~87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 12.05.2026

- CONT.CAS(C) 609/2026, CM APPL.28934/2026 ABHISHEK MAHAJAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Mr. Harshit Joshi and Mr. Parthak Awasthi, Advs.

versus

SHILPA MAHAJAN .....Respondent Through: Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, Ms. Anuradha Anand, Ms. Anoushka Bajpai and Mr. Akshay Chhabra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

It transpires that an SLP (C) No. No.15531/2026 was filed against the order dated 21.04.2026, passed in these proceedings, whereupon the following order dated 30.04.2026 has been passed:

“1. The Family court is encouraged to decide the application filed by the petitioner-wife on 13^th April, 2026 seeking modification of the impugned order dated 10^th November, 2025 as early as possible, preferably any time before the returnable date, i.e. 29^th May, 2026.

2. The application filed by the respondent-husband may also be considered together with the application for modification.

3. Till the returnable date, there shall be stay of operation of the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 21^st April, 2026.”

In terms of the aforesaid order, the said SLP is stated to be listed on

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT CONT.CAS(C) 609/2026 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:1 8.05.2026 11:34:14

Page 1 of 2

29.05.2026.

The respective counsel for the parties are in agreement that in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the physical visitation as directed vide paragraph 6 of the order dated 21.04.2026, cannot be proceeded with. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to contact the minor child for half-an-hour between 04:00 and 06:00 PM, every Monday and Thursday.

Considering the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, petitioner would be at liberty to file afresh (if so warranted) upon conclusion of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and upon disposal of the respondent’s application pending before the Family Court seeking modification of the order dated 10.11.2025.

Considering the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of, with the aforesaid liberty.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J

MAY 12, 2026/ at/sv

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT CONT.CAS(C) 609/2026 KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:1 8.05.2026 11:34:14

Page 2 of 2