Amit Bhambral vs Neha Bhambral@ Neha Sharma And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of Decision: 2 July, 2026
rd
Uploaded on: 3 July, 2026
+ CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 and CM APPL. 40041/2026
AMIT BHAMBRAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Kinha, Advocate.
versus
NEHA BHAMBRAL@ NEHA SHARMA AND ORS...Respondents
Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Advocate for
R-2 and R-3 (M. 9871878690).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 40042/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 and CM APPL. 40041/2026 (for stay)
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter alia , assailing the impugned orders
th th
dated 27 April, 2026 and 18 May, 2026 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in
Contempt Case No. 1226/2025 titled ‘Neha Bhambral@Neha Sharma &
Anr. v. Amit Bhambral’ .
4. A brief background of the present case is that, the marriage was
solemnised between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 on 15th February,
2004. Thereafter, a male child was born from the wedlock.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
5. Disputes had arisen between the parties. Sometime in November, 2021,
Respondent No.1 had filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 being MT No. 438/2021 .
th
6. The Family Court had passed the order dated 20 July, 2024, wherein
the Court had directed that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month would be paid to
Respondent No.1 and Rs. 25,000/- per month would be paid to the minor
child, from the date of filing of application till the disposal of the petition. The
th
said order dated 20 July, 2024 reads as under:
“[...]
The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-
per month to petitioner no.1 and Rs. 25,000/- for minor
child i.e, total Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of
filing of the application till disposal of the petition.
Additionally, respondent is also directed to bear school
fees and other educational expenses of the minor child
every year, details of which will be shared by Petitioner
th
no.1. Aforesaid amount would be transferred by 7 of
each English calendar month, directly in the bank
account of the petitioner no. 1. The respondent is also
directed to clear the arrears accrued to date within
three months in equal monthly installments. The default
shall be viewed in terms of Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya
Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426….”
7. Pursuant thereto, as per the Respondent No.1, the Appellant was in
violation of the order dated 20th July, 2024, as he had not paid the requisite
maintenance amounts. This led to filing of the Contempt Case No. 1226/2025
titled ‘Neha Bhambral@Neha Sharma & Anr. v. Amit Bhambral’ by the
Respondents.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
th
8. In Contempt Case No. 1226/2025 , vide the impugned order dated 27
April 2026, after hearing the Appellant, who had appeared through video
conferencing, the Court had observed as under:
“[...]
2. As noticed, vide order dated 20.07.2024, the
respondent was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- per month
to the petitioners (25,000/- each to the wife and the child
along with school fee and education expenses).
3. Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent has
failed to make any payment whatsoever from
September, 2024 onwards and did not even clear the
arrears within the stipulated time .
4. It is pointed out that the respondent initially
challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2024
through a Revision Petition, but subsequently, withdrew
the same. It is also noticed that in a connected
proceedings i.e., CRL REV.P(MAT) 96/2024 (preferred
by the petitioner) a coordinate Bench of this Court vide
an order dated 18.11.2024 also directed respondent to
comply with the directions passed by the Family Court
in order dated 20.07.2024.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the respondent has deliberately disobeyed the
order passed by this Court. The petitioner initiated
certain execution proceedings and a partial recovery
was made to the tune of Rs.3.5 lakhs (approx.) through
attachment of respondent’s bank account .
6. The respondent joined the proceedings held on
24.04.2026. At his request, the matter was adjourned
and has been taken up today. Admittedly, the
respondent is employed in Dubai, UAE. He is unable
to give any cogent explanation for not paying any
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
amount whatsoever to the petitioner after September,
2024. In response to a query of the Court that at least
he should pay an ad-hoc amount to the petitioner, he
is evasive.
7. In the circumstances, it is quite evident that the
respondent is in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid
directions contained in the order dated 20.07.2024
passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, he is held
guilty of having committed ‘contempt’ as defined
under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .
8. List for orders on sentencing on 18.05.2026 in the
category of “Supplementary Matters”.
9. The respondent is directed to remain present in Court
on the next date of hearing.
10. As the respondent is presently in Dubai, let the copy
of this order be served to the respondent through the
Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE.”
9. In terms of the above order, Ld. Single Judge notes that the Appellant
had failed to make the payment towards maintenance, from September 2024
onwards, and even the arrears had not been cleared. Further, the Appellant
had also filed a Revision Petition and had withdrawn the same.
10. The Ld. Single Judge also notes that in CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)96/2024
th
vide order dated 18 November, 2024, a Ld. Single Judge had also directed
the Appellant to comply with the directions given by the Family Court.
11. Further, vide the impugned order dated 27th April, 2026, the Court had
also felt that there was deliberate disobedience of the order dated 20th July,
2024 passed by the Family Court, and noted that the Appellant is admittedly
residing in Dubai, UAE. It was also noted that he had joined the proceedings
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
through video conferencing, and was unable to give any explanation as to why
the maintenance amount was not being paid.
12. After hearing the Appellant, Ld. Single Judge held that the Appellant
is guilty under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and directed
him to be present on the next date of hearing.
th
13. On 18 May, 2026, the Appellant was duly represented through Ld.
Counsel, and he was also present through video conferencing. He refused to
comply with the order of being physically present, and also no payments were
also made.
14. Under these circumstances, vide the impugned order dated 18th May,
2026, the Court directed as under:
“1. Vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed in the present
proceedings, the respondent was held guilty of having
committed contempt of Courts as defined under Section
10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent
(Mr. Amit Bhambral) was also directed to remain
present in Court today. However, neither is the
respondent physically present in Court nor has he
made any payment whatsoever to the petitioners in
compliance with the extant judicial orders regarding
payment of interim maintenance to the petitioners .
2. The respondent continues to be steadfast in refusing
to pay even a portion of the maintenance amount as
directed vide order dated 20.07.2024 by Family Court,
South East, Saket, Delhi in MT No.438/2021.
However, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the arrangements shall be made for requisite
funds only if the petitioner agrees upon an omnibus
settlement. Such a stand, again, reflects negatively upon
the bonafides of the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
3. Since the arguments on sentencing are required to be
heard, list on 09.07.2026.
4. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact
that it is imperative for the respondent (Mr. Amit
Bhambral) to be present in Court to undergo any
sentence that may be awarded by the Court, he is
directed to remain physically present in Court on the
next date of hearing. However, as the respondent (Mr.
Amit Bhambral) is presently residing in Dubai, UAE
and has openly refused to comply with the order
requiring his physical presence before this Court on
the next date of hearing, let appropriate steps be taken
to impound / suspend the passport of the respondent
(Mr. Amit Bhambral).
5. In the above conspectus, the Bureau of Immigration
is impleaded as the respondent no.2; the Consulate
General of India, Dubai, UAE (through Ministry of
External Affairs) is impleaded as the respondent no.3 in
the present petition.
6. Issue Notice to the newly impleaded respondent nos.2
and 3 through all permissible modes, including
electronically.
7. Let an amended memo of parties be filed by the
petitioner within a period of one week from today.
8. Respondent no.2/Bureau of Immigration is directed to
take appropriate steps for impounding/suspending
passport of the respondent no.1 (Mr. Amit Bhambral).
The petitioner would be at liberty to serve a copy of this
order to the respondent no.2/Bureau of Immigration.
9. The respondent no.3 shall also make efforts to ensure
the presence of the respondent no.1 (Mr. Amit
Bhambral) in Court on the next date of hearing, and will
also notify the authorities in UAE of these proceedings.”
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
15. As per the above impugned order, the Respondent was steadfastly
refusing to pay even a portion of the maintenance amount. It was categorically
submitted that the Respondent is only willing for an overall settlement.
According to the Ld. Single judge, this was clear contempt and since the
Respondent refused to physically appear before the Court, directions to
impound the passport of the Respondent were passed. The Bureau of
Immigration was accordingly impleaded.
16. During the summer vacation, the Appellant filed a Contempt Appeal
(C) 12/2026 titled ‘Amit Bhambral v. Neha Bhambral@Neha Sharma and
th
Ors.’ , challenging the impugned order dated 18 May 2026. However, the
same was withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate remedies. In this regard,
the order dated 5th June, 2026 in Contempt Appeal (C) 12/2026 reads as
under:
“[...]
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant seeks to withdraw the present appeal,
with liberty to seek appropriate remedies in
accordance with law, if as and when required.
3. The present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty as prayed for.
4. The application is disposed of.
17. The present appeal has now been filed against the same impugned order
th th
dated i.e., 18 May, 2026, as also the order dated 27 April, 2026.
18. The Appellant’s counsel appears through video conferencing, and upon
being questioned, as to whether any amount has been paid in terms of the
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29
order dated 20th July, 2024 passed by the Family Court, the answer is clearly
in the negative.
19. No amount has been paid by the Appellant. The only submission made
by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that the Appellant is willing to pay a
lumpsum of Rs. 40 lakhs to finally settle the disputes with Respondent No.1.
However, she is demanding a higher amount.
20. Insofar as the overall settlement is concerned, this Court is of the view
that it is between the Appellant and the Respondent to try and amicably
resolve their disputes.
21. However, in the meantime, the Appellant cannot wilfully continue to
disobey the order passed by the Family Court and refuse to pay maintenance
to the wife and the child.
th th
22. The impugned orders dated 27 April, 2026 and 18 May, 2026 passed
by the Ld. Single Judge are completely valid and tenable, and require no
interference.
23. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
JULY 2, 2026/dss/sm
Signature Not Verified
CONT.APP.(C) 14/2026 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
18:15:29