Delhi HC Orders Red Corner Notice Against British-Citizen Husband Who Defied Maintenance Orders for Years
Justice Sachin Datta sentenced a UK-based contemnor for wilfully disobeying maintenance orders, directing the CBI to seek an INTERPOL Red Corner Notice and issuing arrest and committal warrants.
The High Court of Delhi, in a contempt petition arising from a matrimonial dispute, has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to make a formal request to INTERPOL for a Red Corner Notice against a UK-based respondent who stopped paying court-ordered maintenance of Rs 1.40 lakhs per month, wound up his companies after litigation began, concealed multiple bank accounts and cryptocurrency investments, and ultimately sent an email to his own counsel declaring that he was withdrawing from the jurisdiction of Indian courts. Justice Sachin Datta, sitting singly, pronounced the judgment on 1 July 2026, holding that the respondent's conduct constituted wilful and flagrant disobedience of orders passed by the Family Court as well as the Division Bench and the single judge of this Court. Arrest warrants and committal warrants were directed to be prepared forthwith.
The Dispute Before the Court
Sakshi Nagrath and Tarun Arora were married in New Delhi on 30 January 2005 under Hindu rites. Their daughter, Meher Arora, was born on 14 June 2013. At the time of marriage both parties were Indian citizens, but Tarun Arora subsequently acquired British citizenship and holds an Overseas Citizen of India card. The petitioner and the minor daughter have remained in India; neither has visited the United Kingdom since July 2019, and the respondent has not visited India since January 2020.
Until December 2021, Tarun Arora was paying Rs 1,40,000 per month to Sakshi Nagrath. From January 2022, the payments stopped entirely. In his own reply filed in guardianship proceedings, the respondent admitted that he had been making these payments but claimed he stopped because he did not know the “whereabouts of the petitioner and his daughter.” The petitioner filed a guardianship petition, GP No. 02/2022, before the Family Court, District South East, Saket, New Delhi, seeking appointment as sole guardian of Meher. The respondent entered appearance in those proceedings on 8 June 2022.
On 6 November 2025, the Family Court passed a decree of divorce on the petition filed by Sakshi Nagrath under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The Maintenance Orders and Their Repeated Breach
By order dated 9 October 2023, the Family Court directed the respondent to continue paying Rs 1.40 lakhs per month as an interim measure to protect the interests and welfare of the minor daughter, with payments due by the 7th of each month. The respondent appealed to a Division Bench of this Court in MAT APP.(FC) 336 of 2023. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal on 28 November 2023, directing the respondent to continue the payments but restructuring them as two equal instalments on a quarterly basis.
The respondent did not comply. Upon receiving advance service of the present contempt petition, he filed CM Appl. No. 14415/2024 in the Division Bench proceedings, seeking to substitute the cash payments with an offer to furnish as security a flat at H-105, Raheja Atharva, Sector 109, Gurugram. That application was dismissed on 15 March 2024.
When this Court, in the contempt proceedings, directed on 8 April 2024 that the respondent pay Rs 4,00,000 within ten days, he paid only Rs 30,000 — and that too from a joint account. By order dated 12 August 2024, the Court directed him to make immediate payment of maintenance for his daughter from January 2024 within one month and to appear in person with certified account statements. No compliance followed. On 19 July 2024, this Court recorded that the respondent was “putting forth lame excuses to avoid the payment of maintenance.”
Concealment of Companies, Bank Accounts, and Cryptocurrency
The petitioner placed before the Court detailed evidence of concealment. In the income affidavit filed in the guardianship proceedings on 1 November 2022, the respondent disclosed only one Barclays Bank account (no. 83733173). A careful review of that account's own entries revealed two additional accounts — nos. 70943584 and 53514196 — to which the respondent had been transferring large sums so that the disclosed account maintained a low balance. A third account, no. 10449627, was disclosed only from September 2022, not from April 2019 when the guardianship petition was filed.
The respondent also concealed investments in cryptocurrency through the Binance platform. Entries in the disclosed Barclays account showed transfers to and from Binance, but the respondent filed no details of the dates of purchase, amounts, or sale values. When called upon to produce complete Binance statements, he filed only partial records.
The respondent was the sole director and shareholder of four business entities: GSM Traders Limited, GSM Traders Property Company Limited, Cruises Limited, and GJ Boon. None were mentioned in his income affidavit. For the year ending 31 December 2020, GSM Traders Limited showed net assets exceeding liabilities by £505,788 (approximately Rs 5.30 crores). GSM Traders Property Company Limited owned commercial property at Units 7 and 8, Oak Court, Sandwell Business Park, Oldbury, West Midlands, which was subsequently sold for £325,501. Even after discharging all liabilities, a surplus of £144,029.27 (approximately Rs 1.51 crores) remained in that company as on 24 July 2023.
What the Court found particularly striking was the timing. After the respondent entered appearance in the guardianship proceedings on 8 June 2022 and secured a reference to mediation, he applied for voluntary winding up of both GSM Traders Limited and GSM Traders Property Company Limited on 25 July 2022 — while mediation was still pending. The Court recorded that this “cast a serious doubt on the bona fides of respondent no. 1.”
Separately, on 1 September 2022, while the guardianship proceedings were pending before the Saket Family Court and the respondent was appearing in them, he filed divorce proceedings before HM Courts & Tribunal Services in the United Kingdom, making a declaration that “there are no other court cases which are related to the marriage.” A civil suit filed by the petitioner against those proceedings was decreed on 12 January 2026, permanently restraining the respondent from continuing the UK divorce proceedings.
The family property at House No. 39, Pocket F-26, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, which was in the name of the respondent's parents, was sold on 9 November 2023 — within a month of the Family Court's order of 9 October 2023.
The Respondent's Withdrawal from Indian Jurisdiction
On 3 November 2024, the respondent sent an email to his own counsel, including Mr. Anand Chichra, Advocate, effectively announcing that he would no longer participate in Indian court proceedings. Mr. Chichra placed this email before the Court while seeking discharge. The relevant portion of the email was reproduced in the judgment: “I hereby declare that I am withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, and I will no longer be participating in this case or any related legal proceedings in India.”
The Court treated this as an affront to the institution. Mr. Chichra was discharged on 11 November 2024, and a notice of default was issued to the respondent returnable on 22 January 2025. Despite a specific direction in the order dated 9 March 2026 calling upon the respondent to appear and address arguments on sentencing, he did not appear.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Datta analysed the definition of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which covers wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. Section 10 of the Act confers on the High Court jurisdiction over contempts of subordinate courts. Section 12 prescribes punishment, including simple imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to Rs 2,000, or both, with a further provision allowing detention in a civil prison where a fine will not meet the ends of justice.
The Court drew on the Division Bench judgment in Sonali Bhatia v. Abhivansh Narang, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5114, which held that orders of courts must be enforced even at the pain of contempt to preserve the faith the public places in the judiciary. It also applied the Supreme Court's exposition in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, where the Court held that “wilful” means “knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences,” excluding only casual, accidental, or genuinely involuntary acts.
Applying these principles, Justice Datta found that the respondent had the financial means to comply. He had surplus funds in his own companies. He chose to wind up those companies during mediation. He paid only Rs 30,000 against a court direction of Rs 4,00,000. He refused to produce complete bank statements despite multiple orders. He continued collecting child welfare payments from the UK Government in the minor's name even after December 2021. His assertion that he did not know the whereabouts of the petitioner and daughter was contradicted by the admitted fact that he was actively appearing in the guardianship proceedings at the same time.
The Court held that the respondent's complete refusal to participate, “especially in the context of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, exacerbates allegations of wilful disobedience.” His conduct was described as demonstrating “absolute disdain and disregard of due process, and of the sanctity of these proceedings.” The Court had already found the respondent guilty of contempt by order dated 18 February 2026; the 1 July 2026 judgment dealt with sentencing and consequential directions.
Red Corner Notice and INTERPOL Directions
On the question of a Red Corner Notice, the Court referred to INTERPOL's Rules on the Processing of Data. Article 82 of those Rules governs the issuance of Red Notices for locating a wanted person and securing their arrest or detention with a view to extradition or similar lawful action. Article 83 prescribes the minimum criteria for issuance.
The Court also referred to an order dated 3 April 2017 of the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No. 106 of 2016, where an ad-interim order in terms of a prayer for a Red Corner Notice and a Yellow Corner Notice was passed in a matrimonial contempt matter. It further relied on orders of the Supreme Court dated 9 March 2022 and 6 April 2022 in Paulami Apte & Anr. v. Khaled Kamal Hussein Mohamed Kassem & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2018/2020, where the Court directed the CBI to issue a Red Corner Notice against a foreign national who had taken a child out of India in breach of a High Court order, and subsequently directed the CBI to coordinate with INTERPOL for appropriate notices.
Justice Datta found that the minimum criteria under Article 83 were satisfied. He also held that the exception in Article 83(1)(a)(i) — which excludes purely family or private disputes — was not attracted, because contempt of court and the punishment imposed in these proceedings could not be so characterised.
Order
Justice Sachin Datta issued the following directions on 1 July 2026:
The CBI, impleaded as respondent no. 2 in CM Appl. No. 34652/2025, is directed to make an appropriate request to INTERPOL for issuance of a Red Corner Notice against Tarun Arora, for the purposes of locating, arresting, and detaining him, and for informing the CBI and this Court of his whereabouts.
The CBI is further directed to take appropriate steps for issuance of a Diffusion under Article 97 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data, for the purposes of locating, tracing, apprehending, and detaining the respondent.
The Foreigners Regional Registration Office is directed to intimate the concerned police authorities and the CBI to take necessary steps to secure the arrest of the respondent upon his arrival in India, so as to ensure execution of the sentence imposed.
The concerned respondents are directed to prepare arrest warrants and committal warrants against the contemnor forthwith.
The matter is listed for further consideration on 27 July 2026.