The Delhi HC, while deciding a revision petition, held that the law must recognise the economic value of the unpaid household work done by a homemaker wife.

The capacity to earn and actually earning are two different concepts; mere capacity to earn cannot be a ground to deny maintenance.

The case stems from a marriage, wherein the husband left the wife and the child to settle in Kuwait in August 2020. Family Court under Section 125 CrPC granted interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 to the wife and Rs 40,000 for the Child.

The HC upheld the order as balanced and reasonable.

[Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray]

[Noor Mohammad v. State NCT of Delhi]

The Delhi High Court held that mere non-declaration of gold at the Green Channel does not automatically amount to smuggling, warranting absolute confiscation.

A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul ruled that redemption upon payment of fine, penalty, and applicable duty can be appropriate where the lapse is not organised smuggling.

The Court dismissed Customs’ challenge to appellate orders allowing the release of 300 grams of gold under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

Upholding the exercise of discretion, the Court stressed proportionality and clarified that permitting redemption does not condone violation but calibrates consequences.

[The Commissioner Of Customs v. Ms. Shabnam Parveen]

The Court passed a John Doe order restraining misuse of Swami Ramdev’s name, image, voice and likeness through AI-generated deepfakes, fake endorsements and unauthorised commercial listings.

Justice Jyoti Singh directed takedown of content falsely portraying him as endorsing products, including certain e-commerce listings.

The Court held that his reputation and goodwill deserve protection against unauthorised exploitation.

However, it allowed intermediaries to contest specific URLs claimed as parody or satire. The interim injunction presently operates within India.

[Swami Ramdev v. John Doe & Ors.] 

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL filed by Save India Foundation challenging a 1980 notification of the Delhi Waqf Board declaring three Jahangirpuri mosques as Waqf properties.

A Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the 46-year delay showed a lack of bona fides and termed the attempt an unnecessary raking up of the past.

Questioning the maintainability, the Waqf Board called the plea an abuse of process.

The Bench reiterated Supreme Court principles that frivolous PILs must be “nipped in the bud.”

[Save India Foundation v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court has granted singer Jubin Nautiyal an ex-parte ad-interim injunction protecting his personality and publicity rights.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela restrained AI platforms, e-commerce entities including Flipkart and Amazon, and unidentified “John Doe” parties from using his name, voice, likeness, or singing style for commercial gain.

The Court noted prima facie evidence of voice cloning, deepfakes, AI-generated chatbots, and unauthorised merchandise. Holding that irreparable harm would ensue without urgent relief, the Court directed the takedown of over 70 infringing links and required platforms to disclose the uploader's details.

The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on April 28 and before the Court on August 25, 2026.

[Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Ltd & Ors.]

The Delhi High Court held that, for the purpose of calculating custody period for police remand under Section 187 of BNSS, only the period spent in actual custody counts, and time spent on interim bail cannot be added.

The Court said that interim bail does not amount to custody and thus cannot be included in remand calculations.

It clarified that remand periods must strictly reflect actual detention, and interim bail should not be treated as equivalent to custody for detention limits.

The ruling came while hearing a petition concerning police remand computation.

[Neeraj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi]

The Delhi High Court has held that a wife’s non-employment cannot be equated with idleness while deciding maintenance claims.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a homemaker’s unpaid domestic labour enables the earning spouse to function effectively and must be recognised while determining maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The Court clarified that “capacity to earn” is distinct from “actual earnings,” and mere employability cannot be a ground to refuse support.

Awarding ₹50,000 to the wife, the Court also cautioned that maintenance disputes often turn excessively adversarial and encouraged mediation as a more constructive path in matrimonial conflicts.

The Delhi High Court upheld the removal of a Bank of Baroda officer accused of unauthorised transactions and misappropriation through office accounts.

The Court held that the maker-checker system is only a risk-control mechanism and does not grant immunity to an officer who initiates unlawful or self-serving transactions.

It said an unauthorised transaction remains illicit even if later approved by a supervisor.

Rejecting claims of selective targeting and procedural lapses, the Court found no infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the petition.

[Sakshi Sharma v. UOI]

The Delhi High Court has directed Adeeshwar Singhal to appear in person on March 23 in ongoing criminal contempt proceedings, warning that coercive steps will be taken if he fails to comply.

The Bench took strong exception to Singhal repeatedly joining hearings via video conferencing despite earlier directions for physical appearance.

The Court noted that he used threatening and derogatory language against judges during proceedings. Non-bailable warrants have already been issued after he allegedly refused to disclose his location and failed to comply with court directions.

The Court also appointed advocate Amit George as amicus curiae to assist in the matter.

[Court on its own motion v. Adeeshwar Singhal]

The Delhi High Court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) does not have the power to punish for civil contempt for non-compliance with its final orders.

The Court said Section 19 of the AFT Act is limited to conduct that interrupts or disturbs tribunal proceedings and does not cover disobedience after proceedings conclude.

It clarified that contempt for non-implementation of final AFT orders can be pursued before the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The ruling came while setting aside a Full Bench decision of the AFT. 

[UOI v. Lt Col Mukul Dev]

The Delhi High Court reprimanded the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for delaying payment of professional fees to an advocate appointed as Special Counsel in 2013 to represent DDA and the Ministry before the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Justice Sachin Datta expressed deep dismay at DDA's conduct, stating public authorities must not evade payments to their advocates as it harms the lawyer-client relationship and rule of law.

The Court held a writ petition is maintainable for recovering such fees from state bodies when engagement is undisputed.

It ordered DDA to pay all outstanding dues with 9% interest from each bill's due date, allowing deductions for duplicate billing on same-day hearings.

[Ravi Prakash Mehrotra v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court criticised the Central government for failing to fill the posts of Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities and Chairperson of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities for several years.

Hearing a 2018 PIL, the Court questioned the delay since 2019 and said such inaction was unacceptable.

The Centre sought three months, stating efforts were underway, and an additional charge had been assigned.

The Court directed the government to file an affidavit detailing steps taken and listed the matter for April 9.

[Sanjay Verma & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]