दिल्ली की अदालत ने महिला की शालीनता ठेस पहुँचाने वाले टिप्पणी के लिए पुरुष को दंडित किया

- Home

- /

- News Updates

- /

- Delhi Court Convicts Man For...

Delhi Court Convicts Man For Insulting Woman's Modesty By Questioning Her Child's Paternity

Nupur Thapliyal

30 Sept 2026 2:17 PM IST

A Delhi court has convicted a man for insulting a woman's modesty by asking her “kaun se wale papa?” (which father?) after she told her crying three-year-old daughter, “dekho papa aa gaye, don't cry.”Judicial Magistrate First Class Moksha Bains of Tis Hazari Courts held that the remark, in the circumstances in which it was made, carried a sexually derogatory insinuation concerning...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

A Delhi court has convicted a man for insulting a woman's modesty by asking her “kaun se wale papa?” (which father?) after she told her crying three-year-old daughter, “dekho papa aa gaye, don't cry.”

Judicial Magistrate First Class Moksha Bains of Tis Hazari Courts held that the remark, in the circumstances in which it was made, carried a sexually derogatory insinuation concerning the complainant's relationship with men and the paternity of her child.

The Court observed that the words were not an innocuous inquiry about the identity of the child's father, but implied that there could be more than one man who could be described as the child's father.

The case arose from an incident dated March 23, 2021, when the complainant was walking through a street with her three-year-old daughter and the accused, Girdhari Lal, who used to iron clothes at the spot, allegedly made the remark after the complainant told her crying daughter, “dekho papa aa gaye.”

The complainant subsequently informed her father-in-law, who called the police, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 509 of IPC.

During the trial, the complainant identified Girdhari Lal and maintained that he had made the remark “in a very bad manner.”

Convicting him in the case, the Court noted that the complainant's testimony regarding the utterance remained unshaken in cross-examination.

When the allegation was put to the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, he admitted that he had used the words but claimed that they were not spoken with any ill intention.

The Court observed that the said admission, while not by itself sufficient to substitute the prosecution's obligation to prove the case, could be considered along with the prosecution evidence and lent additional assurance to the complainant's testimony.

It noted that the accused's remark came immediately after the complainant referred to the child's father and held that the expression, when addressed to a woman in that setting, had an “obvious insinuation” affecting her sexual propriety and fidelity.

“The explanation offered by the accused that the words were spoken without “ill intention” is a bare assertion. No surrounding circumstance has been brought on record from which the remark could reasonably acquire an innocent meaning,” the Court said.

At the same time, it clarified that every rude, offensive or insulting remark addressed to a woman would not automatically constitute an offence under Section 509 of IPC, adding that the insult must have the requisite nexus with her modesty.

In the present case, the Court found that the remark carried a sexually derogatory insinuation concerning the complainant's relationship with men and the paternity of her child, and therefore went beyond mere discourtesy or a casual taunt.

“….the intention of the accused is legitimately inferable from the nature of the remark and the circumstances in which it was made. The fact that no independent public witness witnessed the occurrence does not, in the circumstances of the present case, create a reasonable doubt,” the Court said.

“The complainant is the direct witness to the utterance. Her testimony on the material aspect has not been shaken. PW-4 has also explained that no public witness was found available. More importantly, the accused's own statement removes any real controversy regarding the factum of utterance,” it added.

Nupur Thapliyal

Nupur Thapliyal is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, based in New Delhi. She reports from the Delhi High Court and trial courts in the national capital

Powered by Nyaya 247 News