The Bombay High Court has granted urgent ad-interim relief to a family facing credible threats from a estranged family member, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in providing immediate protection against harassment even in civil disputes. The order sets a clear precedent for courts to act swiftly when conduct crosses from familial discord into actionable intimidation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Nishtha Narang and others, are plaintiffs in Suit (L) No. 15771 of 2026, seeking relief against the respondent, Shyam Kacholia, who is the father of Applicant No. 1 and the husband of Applicant No. 3. The parties have been estranged for several years, but the applicants have periodically provided financial support to the respondent for his sustenance. Despite this, the respondent has recently engaged in a pattern of threatening and intimidating conduct, prompting the applicants to seek urgent judicial intervention.
Key Facts
- The respondent has sent threatening communications to the applicants
- He visited the residence of the applicants in the presence of the minor son of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2
- During the visit, he used foul and threatening language and demanded money
- The respondent indicated he would appear in court only if Applicant No. 1 sent money for a flight ticket
- The video conferencing link for the hearing was duly served on the respondent
- The respondent did not appear in person or virtually on the hearing date of 6th May 2026
- An Affidavit of Service confirming service of notice was placed on record
Procedural History
- 6th May 2026: Interim Application (L) No. 15778 of 2026 filed seeking ad-interim injunction
- 6th May 2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Arif S. Doctor
- 6th May 2026: Respondent failed to appear despite service of notice and virtual link
- 6th May 2026: Court granted ad-interim relief
- 24th June 2026: Next date of hearing fixed
Relief Sought
The applicants sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from:
(i) Contacting the applicants, their immediate family members, or their employers (ii) Coming within 50 meters of any applicant’s place of residence or work (iii) Coming within 50 meters of the applicants’ person or that of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2’s minor son (iv) Uttering, repeating, writing, or publishing any words that may defame or harm the applicants’ reputation or goodwill
The Parties' Positions
The applicants, through counsel Mr. Sameer Pandit, submitted that the respondent’s conduct constituted a clear threat to personal safety and psychological well-being, particularly given the presence of a minor child during one incident. The respondents did not file any written submission or appear to contest the application.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury sufficient to warrant an ad-interim injunction restraining a family member from contact, proximity, and threatening speech pending final adjudication.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Sameer Pandit submitted that the respondent’s conduct - threatening communications, physical presence at the residence, verbal abuse in front of a minor, and conditional willingness to appear in court only upon payment - demonstrated a pattern of coercion and intimidation. He relied on the principle that courts must act promptly to prevent harm where there is credible apprehension of threat, even in civil family disputes. He emphasized that the respondents’ non-appearance despite service of notice and virtual access indicated deliberate disregard for judicial process.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent did not appear or file any response. No counter-arguments were presented before the court.
The Court's Analysis
Justice Arif S. Doctor examined the nature of the allegations in the plaint and the conduct described by counsel. The court noted that the respondent’s demand for money as a precondition for court appearance was not merely disrespectful but indicative of a coercive mindset. The court observed that the presence of a minor child during one of the incidents elevated the seriousness of the conduct beyond mere domestic friction.
"The Respondent has chosen not to appear even virtually, despite service of the video conferencing link, and has indicated that his appearance is contingent upon financial payment. This conduct needs no further comment and reflects the Respondent's disregard for the pendency of the present proceedings."
The court held that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case of threat to personal safety and emotional well-being. The balance of convenience clearly favored the applicants, as the respondent’s continued proximity or contact could cause irreparable psychological harm, particularly to the minor child. The court further noted that the injunction sought was narrowly tailored to prevent specific acts of harassment, not to impose blanket restrictions on familial relations.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the respondent from:
(i) Contacting the applicants, their immediate family members, or their employers (ii) Coming within 50 meters of any applicant’s place of residence or work (iii) Coming within 50 meters of the applicants’ person or that of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2’s minor son
The relief is effective until the next hearing on 24th June 2026. A copy of the order was directed to be served on the respondent. The court made clear that if the respondent fails to appear on 24th June 2026, the interim application will be heard ex parte.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Protection Is Available in Civil Family Disputes
- Courts may grant ad-interim injunctions against family members even without a criminal complaint if credible threats of harassment, stalking, or intimidation are established
- The presence of a minor child during threatening conduct significantly strengthens the case for urgent relief
- Non-appearance by the respondent despite proper service supports an inference of guilt or avoidance
Narrowly Tailored Orders Are Preferred
- Injunctions must be specific and proportionate: the court declined to restrain speech (prayer clause a(iv)) pending full hearing, indicating caution against prior restraint on expression
- Relief focused on physical proximity and contact, not communication per se, preserving avenues for lawful interaction
- Practitioners should draft injunction prayers with precision - avoid overreach to ensure judicial willingness to grant relief
Procedural Compliance Is Critical
- Service of notice, including virtual hearing links, must be documented and placed on record
- Affidavits of service are essential to justify ex parte or ad-interim orders
- Courts will not entertain applications where procedural safeguards are ignored
