What Can a Man Do When Faced with Sexual Harassment? Delhi Court Offers an Answer

Can a man seek legal protection from harassment, unwanted sexual advances, and emotional coercion?

A Delhi court answered the question in affirmation on July 25, 2025.

Rohini Court granted injunctive relief to a man facing repeated threats, sexual harassment, and mental distress at the hands of a woman who sought to force a relationship on him.

The case, Mukesh Taneja vs. Nancy Verma & Anr., signals an important recognition: that legal remedies like injunctions are not bound by gender.

They are rooted in personal liberty and bodily autonomy, principles that apply equally to all.

What makes this judgment especially noteworthy is the space it opens up in public and legal discourse around male vulnerability. Men, too, can be at the receiving end of sustained emotional abuse, stalking, and threats, and where coercion and obsession spill into one’s private life and disrupt their peace of mind, the law provides a preventive shield, often even before criminal law mechanisms are set in motion.

In this case, the plaintiff approached the court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking protection from the defendant’s continuous interference in his life.

The court found that he had met the legal threshold required for such relief.

Citing Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, the court held that the man had a prima facie case, one that warranted judicial examination; Screenshots of chats, CCTV footage, police complaints demonstrated that his grievance was not frivolous, Court said.

The balance of convenience was also found to be in his favour.

It was observed that compelling the plaintiff to live under permanent emotional duress and social drama results far greater harm than any inconvenience.

The judgment referred to the Top Court’s ruling in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., which explains that interim injunctions exist to prevent injustice during the pendency of a suit, particularly when there’s a risk of violation of fundamental rights like peaceful living and personal liberty.

On the basis of these findings, the court passed a wide-ranging restraining order;

1.⁠ ⁠The defendants, including the woman’s husband, were barred from entering or coming within 300 meters of the plaintiff’s home.

2.⁠ ⁠They were directed not to stalk, harass, or attempt to contact the plaintiff or his family in any manner, whether directly or through social media or intermediaries.

3.⁠ ⁠Any violation, the court said, would amount to contempt and invite legal consequences.

The plaintiff, a married man, met the defendant at a religious Ashram in 2019.

According to him, she developed feelings for him, which he declined. But what followed was a series of threats, emotional blackmail, pressure to stay in contact, and eventually, unwanted sexual advances.

He alleged that the defendant stalked his children online, showed up at his house uninvited, created scenes in the neighbourhood, and contacted his acquaintances.

Though he blocked her from all platforms, the behaviour continued.

Police complaints were filed, but the situation did not improve, forcing him to approach the civil court for protection.

This judgment sets an important precedent; Harassment is not a gendered experience.

The right to feel safe in one’s home, to disengage from unwanted emotional/sexual attention, and to live free of coercion belongs to everyone.

As the law continues to evolve, judicial intervention in upholding these rights for men as well reflects a growing awareness that dignity and autonomy are not conditioned by gender.