The Delhi High Court has declined to initiate contempt proceedings against a husband and his lawyers for filing the wife's intimate photographs along with a divorce petition, holding that although the act was a "grave lapse", there was no material to establish wilful disobedience of its directions governing the filing of sensitive material in matrimonial proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 605]

Justice Sachin Datta was hearing a contempt petition alleging violation of a 2015 Delhi High Court judgment, which had directed that documents of a sensitive or private nature should first be produced in a sealed cover after obtaining the Court's leave.

Petitioner-woman contended that the respondents had breached those directions by annexing unredacted intimate photographs to a divorce petition filed before the Family Court.

The High Court however noted that the respondents claimed that the said directions were not to their knowledge. Further, when confronted, they did not seek to justify their actions and rather tendered an unconditional apology and filed an application before the Family Court to place the offending photographs in a sealed cover.

“Since the respondents have sought to purge the lapse both by tendering an unconditional apology and by undertaking remedial measures, this Court is not inclined to take any action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” the Court said.

However, while absolving the Respondents from 'contempt', the Court expresses its strong disapproval.

“The zeal to advance a client's cause in a matrimonial litigation can never justify the sacrifice of the dignity of the opposite party, least of all where the opposite party is a woman and the material in question is of such intimate character,” it told the Respondent-lawyers.

While disposing of the contempt petition, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner-woman to approach the Family Court for masking and anonymisation of her identity and protection of the offending material.

The Court further requested the Family Court to remove the photographs from the open record and place them in a sealed cover.

Appearance: Mr. Rubinder Ghuman, Ms. Anu Mehta, Mr. Rajat Tyagi, Ms. Adya Nanda, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Aditya Sharda, Advocate for R-2 and R-3 (in person). Mr. Jatan Singh, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Singh, Ms. Vanishka Adhana, Mr. Jashank Srivastav and Mr. Kartikeya Basoya, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: R v. H

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 605

Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 336/2024

Click here to read order