Vikas Verma vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 6 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010542312026
+ W.P.(C) 16684/2026 & CM APPL. 78077/2026, CM APPL.
78078/2026
VIKAS VERMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rudra Vikram singh, Mr.
Tarshith Bhardwaj, Mr.
Ashirvad Kumar Yadav, Ms.
Rashmi, Mr. Shashank Shukla,
Mr. Sanat Vadhera, Advocates.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr.
Ujjwal Jain, Mr. Hegreev
Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following
prayers:
“A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of
mandamus directing the Respondents to collectively pay adequate
public-law compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) to the Petitioner for the alleged unlawful deprivation of his
personal liberty and violation ofArticle 21 of the Constitution of
India arising from his illegal arrest and incarceration for a period
exceeding 24 hours in the circumstances set out in the present Writ
Petition .
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Respondent No. 4 to refund the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) wrongfully received by her from the Petitioner on
17.10.2026, along with interest at such rate as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper, within a timebound period as may be fixed
by this Hon’ble Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16684/2026 Page 1 of 4

C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Respondent No. 4 to pay further compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner on account of her alleged
mala fide and fraudulent institution and pursuit of the execution
proceedings seeking recovery of an amount not payable to her,
which formed the root of the hardship, coercive proceedings, arrest
and incarceration suffered by the Petitioner.
D. Direct an independent inquiry into the institution and pursuit of
the execution proceedings by Respondent No. 4 as well as into the
circumstances leading to his arrest and incarceration for a period
exceeding 24 hours and direct appropriate civil, departmental
and/or criminal action, in accordance with law, against Respondent
No. 4 and all officials, authorities or other persons found
responsible for the Petitioner’s illegal arrest and incarceration.
E. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that vide orders dated 29.07.2024
and 24.09.2024, the Family Court had imposed costs aggregating to Rs.
20,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,000/- was payable to Respondent No. 4 and
the remaining Rs. 15,000/- was payable to the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority (DLSA).
3. It is contended that Respondent No. 4, despite being entitled to
only Rs. 5,000/-, instituted execution proceedings on 24.03.2025
seeking recovery of Rs. 15,000/- in her favour, without properly
disclosing the allocation of costs under the original orders.
4. The petitioner further contends that on 18.08.2026, he paid Rs.
5,000/- to Respondent No. 4 and deposited the remaining Rs. 15,000/-
with the DLSA, thereby discharging the entire cost liability of Rs.
20,000/-, as duly recorded in the order sheet of the Family Court.
5. It is contended that despite the aforesaid payments, the execution
proceedings continued and the petitioner was arrested from his
residence on 15.10.2026 and produced before the Family Court, where
he was remanded to civil imprisonment. It is contended that he was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16684/2026 Page 2 of 4

produced before the Family Court again on 16.10.2026, when he was
directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15,000/-, which he deposited,
following which an order for his release was passed. The petitioner
alleges that Respondent No. 4 thereafter collected the additional amount
of Rs. 15,000/- on 17.10.2026, despite having already received Rs.
5,000/- and the DLSA having received the remaining amount under the
original cost orders.
6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the entire controversy
emanates from matrimonial proceedings pending between the petitioner
and Respondent No. 4 before the Learned Family Court. The allegations
raised in the present petition, including those concerning the institution
of execution proceedings, the alleged suppression of material facts by
Respondent No. 4 and the subsequent arrest of the petitioner, are
connected with the said matrimonial dispute and the proceedings
arising therefrom.
7. In the present case, the petitioner has sought to project the
controversy as one involving unlawful deprivation of personal liberty.
However, the events complained of arise directly from execution
proceedings emanating from the orders passed by the Learned Family
Court in the pending matrimonial proceedings. Whether the said orders
passed in the Execution proceedings were appropriate are disputed
questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated by this Court while
exercising writ jurisdiction.
8. This Court is of the opinion that the extraordinary jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot be permitted to become a forum for the parties to a matrimonial
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16684/2026 Page 3 of 4

dispute to pursue their personal grievances against each other or to settle
scores arising out of their matrimonial discord. The writ jurisdiction
cannot be converted into an instrument for pursuing private vendettas
or for granting parties an additional forum to ventilate grievances
arising out of proceedings pending before another competent judicial
forum.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the filing of the present petition
amounts to an abuse of the process of law and has unnecessarily
engaged the time of this Court.
10. This Court was, accordingly, inclined to impose costs upon the
petitioner. However, upon the insistence of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, the imposition of costs is waived.
11. Insofar as the contention pertaining to any excess amount having
been paid to Respondent No. 4 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty
to file an appropriate application before the appropriate Court.
12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 16684/2026 Page 4 of 4