Bushr Parveen vs Dr Aamir Khan

$~87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.05.2026
+ CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025
BUSHR PARVEEN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Lal, Ms. Heena Bisht, Mr.
Abhishek Ranjan and Mr. Afjal
Ansan, advocates alongwith
Petitioner in person.
versus
DR AAMIR KHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anand Kumar, Mr. Afajal Ansari
and Mr. Chetan Singh, Advs.
alongwith respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL.2706/2025 ( Exemption )
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025
3. The factual background in the context of which the petition has been
filed, is peculiar.
4. The petitioner initially filed an FIR No. 438/2021 under Sections 376
and 328 of the IPC at P.S. Ranjit Nagar against the respondent. Following
the registration of the said FIR, a Nikahnama was performed between the
parties.
5. Vide order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Tis Hazari Courts, the respondent was granted bail. Thereafter, on
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:18:31

06.03.2022, a formal marriage ceremony took place between the parties.
6. Subsequently, the parties executed a compromise deed dated
04.04.2022, which was made the basis for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.
The said compromise deed, inter - alia, contemplated that the respondent
would bear all household expenses and pay a dedicated monthly allowance
of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner for her personal expenses.
7. Thereafter, in the above background, this Court vide order dated
24.05.2022 passed in CRL.M.C. 175/2022, quashed the aforesaid FIR No.
438/2021. It is the case of the petitioner that almost immediately after
quashing of the said FIR, the respondent stopped making the monthly
payments and subjected the petitioner to cruelty, forced her for abortion and
also abandoned her.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed
CONT.CAS(C) 460/2023, in which order dated 27.07.2023 came to be
passed, which is in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:18:31

9. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid order, the respondent did not
abide by its undertaking to take the petitioner back and co-habit with her. It
is submitted that petitioner was blocked from entering the respondent’s
house, forcing her to file a complaint dated 22.08.2023 at PS Chola,
Bulandsahar.

10. It is submitted that thereafter, yet another Contempt petition being
CONT.CAS(C) 1785/2023 came to be filed by the petitioner for violation of
the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2023. It is submitted that the same was
withdrawn on account of being induced by the promises of an out of Court
reconciliation.
11. However, the mutual reconciliation never materialised. Following the
withdrawal by the petitioner of the aforesaid contempt petition bearing
CONT.CAS(C) 1785/2023, the respondent sent a registered Talaq letter to
the petitioner and second Talaq letter on Whatsapp, and subsequently
married another individual.
12. Prima facie , in the above background, it is evident that the respondent
has acted in breach of the compromise deed dated 04.04.2022, which
imposed various obligations on the respondent, in particular, the obligation
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:18:31

to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner. The said compromise deed
had a crucial bearing on the proceedings in CRL.M.C. 175/2022, in which
FIR No. 438/2021 was quashed by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2022.
Despite having being absolved of the serious offences which were the
subject matter of the aforesaid FIR, the respondent appears to have acted in
absolute disdain of the compromise deed. In terms of the dicta in
Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai , (2023) 17 SCC
545 and Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora , (1996) 6 SCC 14, the same
amounts to ‘contempt’. The relevant observations in Balwantbhai
Somabhai Bhandari (supra) are reproduced as under –
“66. In Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora [Rita
Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora, (1996) 6 SCC 14] , it was observed
that even if parties have not filed an undertaking before the court but
if the court was induced to sanction a particular course of action or
inaction on the representation made by a party and the court
ultimately finds that the party never intended to act on the said
representation or such representation was false, the party would be
guilty of committing contempt. It was observed : (SCC p. 20, para 12)
“12. Law is well settled that if any party gives an
undertaking to the court to vacate the premises from
which he is liable to be evicted under the orders of the
court and there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof it
amounts to civil contempt but since, in the present case,
the respondent did not file any undertaking as envisaged
in the order of this Court the question of his being
punished for breach thereof does not arise. However, in
our considered view even in a case where no such
undertaking is given, a party to a litigation may be held
liable for such contempt if the court is induced to sanction
a particular course of action or inaction on the basis of
the representation of such a party and the court ultimately
finds that the party never intended to act on such
representation or such representation was false. In other
words, if on the representation of the respondent herein
the Court was persuaded to pass the order dated 5-10-
1995 extending the time for vacation of the suit premises,
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:18:31

he may be held guilty of contempt of court,
notwithstanding non-furnishing of the undertaking, if it is
found that the representation was false and the respondent
never intended to act upon it.”
xxx xxx xxx
74. …….. As held in M. v. Home Office [M. v. Home Office, 1992 QB
270 : (1992) 2 WLR 73 (CA)] relied upon by this Court in Rama
Narang [Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] that if
a party or solicitor or counsel on his behalf, so as to convey to the
court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given, that party
will be bound and it will be no answer that he did not think that he
was giving it or that he was misunderstood. The breach of an
undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on
the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is
misconduct amounting to contempt.”


13. This Court also finds the conduct of the respondent in re-marrying
some other person without discharging his obligations towards the
petitioner, to be quite reprehensible.
14. In the circumstances, let a Show Cause Notice be issued to the
respondent to show cause as to why he should not be punished for
committing contempt of court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. Let the respondent file its reply to the Show Cause
Notice within a period of four weeks from today.
15. List on 17.09.2026.
16. In the meantime, with a view to ensure that the continued infraction of
the compromise deed does not continue, and to ensure that the respondent
does not continue to take advantage / benefit from his contemptuous
conduct, it is directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per
month to the petitioner as mandated vide the compromise deed dated
04.04.2022, w.e.f 01.05.2026. The amount due for the month of May, 2026
shall be paid within a period of one week from today and for future period,
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:18:31

th
the amount shall be paid on or before 7 day of the concerned month.

SACHIN DATTA, J
MAY 21, 2026/ at/ka
Signature Not Verified
CONT.CAS(C) 54/2025 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:18:31