Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kar vs Pinky Devi on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS SHRUTI CHAUDHARY,
SCJ-CUM-RC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND030016032022
CS SCJ No. 942/2022
Sanjay Kar
S/o Late Sh. Sitanshu Kar
R/o RZF-30A, West Sagarpur,
Delhi-110046. ...........Plaintiff
Versus
Pinky Devi
W/o Sh. Pawan Jha
Office at Working as Aaya/Patient Caretaker
in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
In Reachout Organization
Rajender Nagar, Delhi-110060. ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.07.2022
Date of Judgment : 27.01.2026
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is working as a Sr. Technician, DSEU, Wazirpur, Delhi residing at RZF-30A, West Sagarpur, Delhi-110046 and the defendant is working at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajender Nagar, Delhi. It is Digitally signed CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi by SHRUTI 1/8 CHAUDHARY SHRUTI CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:54:12 +0530 averred by the plaintiff that the defendant was engaged to provide care to his now deceased sister namely Mrs. Babli Roy Acharya for the purposes of her kidney dialysis and during the period of March/April, 2021, the defendant started residing with the plaintiff with a desire to marry him and consequent to her request, the plaintiff and defendant established physical relations. It is stated that thereafter, the defendant started compelling the plaintiff to transfer his property in her name, apart from asking for money and upon his refusal, she threatened to file false cases of rape and molestation against him and also threatened to commit suicide. It is stated that the plaintiff has already paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash and other expensive gifts to the defendant but the defendant has abused him using filthy language on 14.06.2022. It is also stated that on 07.07.2022 & 08.07.2022, the plaintiff gave written complaints to SHO PS Sagarpur as well as DCP South West District and has also filed a complaint case u/s 200 R/w section 156 Cr.P.C against the defendant.
Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant and her agents, representatives, relatives, friends etc. or any other person acting on her behalf not to make phone calls, message, physical contact and contact Digitally signed by SHRUTI CHAUDHARY CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi SHRUTI 2/8 CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:54:22 +0530 on social media or to visit at the residence of the plaintiff i.e. RZF-30A, West Sagarpur, Delhi-110046 or to compel the plaintiff for transferring his property in her name or not to indulge or call to any relatives and family members of the plaintiff in any manner or to stop extorting / demanding money from the plaintiff, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Award the cost of the suit alongwith the litigation expenses in favour of the plaintiff.
(iii) Any other order/relief/s which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in the interest of justice.
2. Summons were issued to the defendant and WS was filed by the defendant on 14.09.2022, in which the defendant has denied the case of the plaintiff and has prayed for dismissal of the present suit. Thereafter, no replication was filed. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 03.08.2024:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant as prayed for ? OPP.Digitally signed by SHRUTI
CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi SHRUTI CHAUDHARY 3/8 CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:54:31 +0530 ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost award alongwith litigation expenses ? OPP iii. Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed ? OPD iv. Relief.
3. Thereafter, matter was listed for PE. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
i) Original complaint dt. 07.07.2022, copy of postal receipts alongwith certificate u/s 65B IEA and 63 of BSA, 2023 Ex. PW1/1.
ii) Copy of email sent to the Commiserating of Delhi Police and Human Rights Commission Ex. PW1/2.
iii) Bank certified copy of records of Home Loan taken by the deponent on the suit property Ex. PW1/3.
iv) Certified copy of title documents of the suit property Ex. PW1/4.
Despite repeated opportunities, the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff and right of defendant to cross examine the plaintiff stood closed vide order dt. 14.10.2025. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff, PE was closed and matter was listed for DE.
4. Despite repeated opportunities, the defendant failed to lead DE and opportunity of defendant to lead DE stood closed.
Digitally signed by SHRUTICS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi SHRUTI CHAUDHARY 4/8 CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:54:39 +0530 This court has heard the final arguments on behalf of plaintiff and has also gone through the court record.
5. The case has been filed within the period of limitation.
Further, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present case as it is averred in the plaint that the defendant resides within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
6. Before proceedings with the merits of the case, it must be remarked that the present suit seeks protection of personal liberty, privacy and property of the plaintiff based on the averments that the defendant has harassed and unlawfully interfered with the rights of the plaintiff. In a case seeking injunction, which is based on equity, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to prove his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
7. Firstly, coming to issue no. iii i.e. (iii) Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed ? OPD, the onus lied upon the defendant to show that the present suit was liable to be dismissed, however, the defendant has neither cross examined the plaintiff nor led any evidence. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
8. Coming to issues no. i & ii i.e. (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the Digitally signed by SHRUTI CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi CHAUDHARY 5/8 SHRUTI CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:54:47 +0530 defendant as prayed for ? OPP and (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost award alongwith litigation expenses ? OPP, both shall be discussed jointly as it involves common discussion. It is settled law that civil courts cannot adjudicate morality or consent of relationships between two adults but shall restrain itself to illegal interference, intimidation, stalking or coercive conduct of the defendant. Civil injunction must be narrowly tailored and proportionate. Further, no blanket orders imposing a perpetual, absolute gag on communication can be granted on the basis of vague allegations. Reliance is placed on Kishor Samrite vs. State of UP (2013) 2 SCC 398. In the present case, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant started "compelling" him to transfer his property in her name and "regularly blackmailed and threatened" him to implicate him in false case of rape and molestation, however, no evidence in this regard has been placed on record except the complaint Ex. PW1/1 and email Ex. PW1/2. These documents do not prove the truth of the allegations made therein but simply show that the plaintiff has taken the said pleas before the authorities concerned. Further, the plaintiff has sought injunction against the defendant from contacting him via phone calls, message and on social media, however, the plaintiff has neither provided his phone numbers nor any proof of his existence on social media. These reliefs sought by the plaintiff are too vague to warrant any consideration by this court and further any such blanket order would be Digitally signed by SHRUTI CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi CHAUDHARY 6/8 SHRUTI CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:54:56 +0530 cumbersome to execute. Further, the plaintiff has sought injunction against the defendant from any physical contact or visit at his residence and not to compel the plaintiff for transferring his property in her name. No evidence in this regard has been led by the plaintiff to show that the defendant had initiated any unwanted physical contact or visited his residence with an ulterior motive. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that no orders of Civil Court can be made pertaining to moral conduct of the parties, given that both parties are consenting adults. No substantial evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that the defendant had infact violated or threatened the legal rights to his property or privacy.
9. While this court is conscious of the right of plaintiff to privacy and personal liberty, no injunction can be granted on vague or omnibus allegations. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff are overboard and unsustainable, incapable in precise enforcement. Also, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff effectively resemble a perpetual restraining order, which has no statutory basis in civil law. Prevention of criminal acts lies within the domain of criminal law and not civil injunctions. Therefore, it is the considered opinion of this court that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the issues no. i & ii are decided against Digitally signed the plaintiff. by SHRUTI CHAUDHARY SHRUTI CHAUDHARY Date:
2026.01.27 15:55:07 +0530 CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi 7/8
10. Overall, I find no merit in the present suit, which stands dismissed. Interim order dt. 01.08.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
11. Nothing stated herein shall effect the right of the plaintiff to pursue separate criminal remedies against the defendant.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date: 2026.01.27
15:55:18 +0530
(Announced in the open Court) (SHRUTI CHAUDHARY)
27th January, 2026 SCJ-cum-RC/PHC
NEW DELHI
CS SCJ No. 942/22 Sanjay Kar vs. Pinky Devi 8/8