The Delhi High Court, on July 28, 2025, delivered a significant verdict in the case of Pankaj Jain v. Parul Jain, concerning confidentiality in matrimonial disputes. The appeal was filed by the appellant Pankaj Jain under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The objective was to challenge the family court's decision dated March 29, 2025, which had rejected his request for injunctive relief under Section 22 of the HMA.
Pankaj Jain and Parul Jain were married on April 22, 2006, and have a daughter born on February 11, 2013. Following marital issues, Parul Jain initiated divorce proceedings under HMA No. 1089/2018 in the Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Read also:- Delhi HC Denies Bail to Husband in Dowry Suicide Case of Gulnaz @ Julie
During the ongoing litigation, the appellant filed multiple applications between 2021 and 2024 under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He alleged that Parul Jain, her brother, and her employer had disclosed confidential information related to the matrimonial and custody proceedings to external parties. These disclosures, he claimed, were used in civil suits, criminal cases, complaints under the POCSO Act, and were even shared with institutions like the police and schools attended by the child.
Pankaj Jain sought injunctions to prevent further use or circulation of these details, claiming it violated the confidentiality provision under Section 22 of the HMA.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction of Man for Sending Morphed Obscene Images to Minor Girl via WhatsApp
The Family Court dismissed all four applications through a single consolidated order. It observed that there was no evidence of any printed or public publication of the sensitive matrimonial details. The Court further noted that references made by the respondent and her family were part of legitimate defences in cases initiated by the appellant himself.
“No breach of Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made out since the material has not been published in the public domain,” the Family Court had concluded.
In his appeal, Pankaj Jain appeared in person and argued that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the broader intention of Section 22, which aims to safeguard privacy in matrimonial cases. He stressed that even if the disclosures were not published in media, they constituted publication “in relation to the proceedings” and caused harm to the privacy of the parties, including the minor child.
Read also:- SC Upholds Rule: Only Delhi HC’s Retired Judges Eligible for Senior Advocate
He also criticised the Family Court for narrowly interpreting the word “publication” and for giving undue weight to the opposing party’s “right to defence” argument. He argued that disclosing confidential details to the employer and authorities without the Court’s permission breached the statute.
He relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Sukanya v. R. Sridhar to assert that any unauthorised publication could invite legal consequences under Section 22(2).
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the appeal after carefully reviewing the submissions and facts of the case.
The Court clarified the legislative intent behind Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act:
“The provision intends to prevent printing or publishing sensitive matrimonial material in public, such as newspapers or digital media, unless permitted by the Court,” the Bench noted.
Read also:- Shri Ajit Kumar Appointed as New Judge of Patna High Court
It held that the alleged disclosures made by the respondent were part of legal defences in separate proceedings initiated by the appellant. These were not made to the public, nor did they appear in the media. Even the POCSO-related references were made to competent legal authorities and not for public dissemination.
“References in a bona fide legal defence cannot be equated with publication,” the Court observed.
The Court also asked the appellant to clarify how the so-called “publication” occurred. Since he failed to demonstrate any evidence of public circulation, the Bench found his allegations unsubstantiated.
the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Pankaj Jain v. Parul Jain
Case Number: MAT. APP. (F.C.) 264/2025