In a case that challenges common perceptions around harassment, a Delhi court ordered a woman not to emotionally and sexually harass a man. A district court in Rohini, in a restraining order issued against Nancy, accused of sexually harassing a man in Vijay Nagar, said that harassment can affect anyone regardless of gender. The court found evidence of the accused woman’s predatory sexual advancements and issued the restraining order, barring Nancy from meeting or communicating with him.
Background Of The Case
The case, Mukesh Taneja vs. Nancy Verma & Anr. (CS SCJ 294/25), was heard in the Civil Judge’s court at Rohini, where the Complainant, Mukesh Taneja, described how an acquaintance from a spiritual ashram spiraled into an aggressive and unwanted pursuit. Taneja, who is married, alleged that Nancy Verma began expressing romantic interest in him, which he firmly rejected. However, according to the suit, Verma allegedly resorted to emotional blackmail, including suicide threats, and began pressuring him into a physical relationship.
Mukesh Taneja, the person who filed the case, owns a small apartment in Vijay Nagar, Delhi. As per the court records, he met the main person he is accusing, Nancy Verma, in December 2019 at a spiritual place (Ashram) where both of them used to go.
They started talking more often over time. In July 2022, Nancy reportedly told Mukesh that she had romantic feelings for him. Mukesh says he refused because he is already married. After that, he claims Nancy started threatening to harm herself if he didn’t return her feelings and kept trying to stay in contact with him.
On May 9, 2024, Nancy reportedly came to Mukesh Taneja’s house and caused a disturbance. To calm things down, Mukesh contacted her husband who is the second accused in the case.
But similar problems happened again, on November 4 and 22, 2024, and February 1 and 9, 2025. During these visits, she allegedly threatened to take her own life and created scenes near Mukesh’s home.
The police were called on February 9, 2025, and Mukesh filed a formal complaint on March 6, 2025. However, he says the harassment still didn’t stop.
Court’s Observations And Ruling
The court took note of the material presented, including screenshots of chats and CCTV footage, and observed that Taneja had established a strong prima facie case. The judge noted that the harassment was causing “serious emotional and reputational harm” and amounted to an infringement of his right to live peacefully.
As a result, the court passed an interim injunction restraining both Verma and her husband from coming within 300 meters of Taneja’s residence in Vijay Nagar, Delhi. They were also barred from making any direct or indirect contact, with the plaintiff or his family via phone, messaging apps, social media, or through third parties.
The Complainant was represented by Advocate Divya Tripathi from Tripaksha Litigation. The court also issued a warning that any violation of its order would result in contempt proceedings.
The case has drawn attention for flipping the gender dynamic often associated with harassment cases, with legal experts noting its importance in affirming that men, too, can be victims of coercion and emotional abuse. The ruling highlights that the law offers protection regardless of gender, and that persistent unwanted advances, no matter who makes them, can have severe legal consequences.
