DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Delhi court bars woman from stalking married man

Plaintiff had refused physical advances
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Delhi High Court. File
Advertisement

In an unusual yet serious case of harassment, a Delhi court has passed a restraining order against a woman accused of persistently stalking a married man after he declined her request for a physical relationship.

Advertisement

Civil Judge Renu, presiding over the Rohini Court, directed that the woman, who is herself married, must not come within 300 metres of the man’s residence. She has also been barred from making any form of contact with him or his family members.

“Defendants are also restrained from stalking, harassing, or following the plaintiff (man) or any member of his family either in person or through any means of communication, including electronic, telephonic, or social media platforms. Defendants are further restrained from making any attempt to contact the plaintiff or his family members, directly or indirectly, including through third parties,” the court said in its order.

Advertisement

The plaintiff, a married man with children, approached the court seeking protection after allegedly facing sustained harassment from the woman. According to him, their interaction began in 2019 at an ‘ashram’, where they exchanged contact details and kept in touch. However, in 2022, when she expressed a desire for a physical relationship, he turned her down, citing his age, marital status and responsibilities.

Despite his refusal, the woman allegedly began stalking him and even his children on social media. He claimed she visited his flat uninvited and repeatedly pressured him to have an intimate relationship. In a disturbing turn, she is also said to have threatened suicide if he continued to avoid her.

Advertisement

After reviewing the facts, the court held that the woman’s actions infringed upon the man’s fundamental right to live peacefully and move freely without fear.

Such interference, Judge Renu noted, amounted to irreparable harm, justifying the court’s intervention through a formal restraining order.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts