Delhi High Court fines Advocate Poonam Bisht Rs 50,000 for a baseless contempt plea against her husband over child visitation. Court cites video evidence showing her and her relatives misbehaving, leading to tragic consequences.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Advocate Poonam Bisht against her estranged husband, Samrat Singh Rawat, calling the petition “without merit” and further imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 for filing what the Court found to be a frivolous and misleading case.
The matter pertained to alleged violation of court-ordered child visitation rights on the occasion of Diwali.
The petition was filed by Poonam Bisht under CONT.CAS(C) 1741/2023, claiming that her husband had breached the terms of an earlier family court order dated October 7, 2023. According to the family court, the father was allowed to meet his children without being accompanied by his parents or any third parties and without recording videos or taking photos during the visitation.
However, the High Court had later modified this direction on November 9, 2023, specifically allowing the father to meet his children along with his parents at the petitioner’s office on Diwali, i.e., November 12, 2023.
Poonam Bisht argued that her original office space was unavailable due to a Diwali Pooja, so she arranged a private conference room in a co-working space located nearby. She then informed the respondent via email and demanded that he bear the cost of the venue.
However, the Court found no merit in this demand and observed that there was no such direction in its order requiring the respondent to pay for the venue. The Court stated:
“There was no direction for the respondent no. 1 to bear the cost of the venue.”
The petitioner further alleged that:
“When the respondent reached the venue of visitation, he intentionally disturbed the petitioner, her family members, her employers with the sole aim of shattering her confidence, curb her source of living by trying to get her fired from work and reduce her existence to mere groveling.”
She also accused the respondent of recording videos and taking photographs without permission.
However, during the hearing, the petitioner’s own video evidence contradicted her claims. Though she had not submitted the videos with the petition, the Court asked her to present them during the hearing.
Upon watching the footage, the Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar concluded that it was actually the petitioner and her associates who were provoking and misbehaving with the respondent. The Court observed:
“On watching the video, it is our considered opinion that 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.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that the father was indeed accompanied by his parents, and tragically, the respondent’s mother passed away soon after this altercation:
“We have been informed that the respondent no. 3 has unfortunately passed away on 12.02.2025.”
The Court also remarked that:
“In the video, the respondent no. 2 even tried to request the persons accompanying the petitioner not to mock the respondent no. 1 and to allow the visitation to take place peacefully. However, this request, as is apparent from the video, was again mocked at.”
Given the misleading nature of the petition and the real circumstances as revealed in the video, the Court ruled that the contempt petition had no basis and dismissed it. Moreover, it imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on Poonam Bisht:
“We, therefore, find no merit in the present contempt petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
“We further direct the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the respondent no. 1 while the remaining Rs. 25,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from today.”
This case serves as a reminder that misuse of legal remedies not only weakens genuine causes but can also lead to serious consequences, including financial penalties, especially when evidence contradicts the narrative presented in court.
Case Title:
Poonam Bisht v. Samrat Singh Rawat & Others
Case No.: CONT.CAS(C) 1741/2023
Date of Decision:
28 March 2025
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar
Parties Involved:
Petitioner: Poonam Bisht
Represented by: Ms. Shambhavi, Advocate
Present in person
Respondents: Samrat Singh Rawat & Others
Represented by: Ms. Shreya Singhal, Ms. M. Keditsu, and Ms. Kushagra Singla, Advocates
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
