Delhi court bars couple accused of stalking man since 2019 after romantic rejection

The plaintiff said he met the woman at an ashram in 2019. In 2022, the woman confessed her feelings to the man and pressured him to establish sexual relations

A Delhi court last week ordered a man and his wife to stay away from another man who said the couple had been stalking and harassing him since 2019, after he turned down the woman’s offer to have a sexual relationship.

(Representational image)

The court gave the order on a suit filed against the couple by the man, who is a resident of Vijay Nagar in north Delhi. Civil judge Renu of the Rohini district court said that the couple’s actions infringed on the fundamental rights of the plaintiff by interfering in his ability to move freely and enjoy life peacefully.

“This is in clear violation of fundamental rights and such interference causes irreparable injury which cannot be adequately redressed later,” the court said.

The plaintiff said he met the woman at an ashram in 2019. In 2022, the woman confessed her feelings to the man, but he rejected her. She threatened to allegedly die by suicide if he failed to speak to her. The woman then began to stalk the man’s children on social media and pressured him to establish sexual relations with her. When her attempts failed, she came with her husband to the plaintiff’s house in March and also “created a nuisance in the neighbourhood”. The man reported the incident to the police, but the stalking allegedly continued, and the man moved court.

In his application moved by advocate Divya Tripathi for interim injunction, he sought relief against the couple from creating any nuisance outside his house and stalking and threatening his family members.

An interim injunction application is generally moved seeking a temporary order to maintain status quo in an ongoing legal dispute, to prevent further damages to either parties before the resolution of the matter.

The court saw the screenshots of chats between the plaintiff and the woman and CCTV footage and was convinced that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff. The order said, “The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff as a plaintiff cannot be compelled against his own wishes to remain in contact with defendants to commit suicide or to create drama in the neighbourhood of the plaintiff.”

Allowing the application, the court restrained the couple from entering the suit property (where the man lives with his family) or roam anywhere within 300 metres of it.

The court also restrained the couple from stalking, harassing or following the man or any member of his family either in person or through any other means of communication, adding that violation of the order would attract contempt proceedings.