$~O-27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 915/2025 PARUL TULI .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv with Mr.

Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Sanchit Saini, Ms. Neha Jain and Ms.

Mayanka Dhawan, Advs.

versus ALOK TULI .....Defendant Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 15.12.2025 I.A. 31368/2025 (EXEMPTION- LEGIBLE DOCS)

1. Plaintiff shall file legible/original/certified and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

2. The application for exemption is allowed, subject to the plaintiff granting inspection of the documents filed, as and when required to do so, or filing the original documents at the stage of admission/denial.

3. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 31366/2025 (INJUNCTION)

I.A. 31367/2025 U/O 2 R 3- (FOR LEAVE TO RAISE ADDL ISSUES AND CLAIMS)

I.A. 31369/2025 (EXEMPTION- ADVANCE COPY TO DEFENDANT)

4. The plaintiff and the defendant are the wife and husband respectively, with their marriage having been solemnized on 11.03.1999. A dispute has now arisen on account of their matrimonial discord and the plaintiff submits that while she is the primary holder, owner and beneficiary of substantial movable and financial assets including various bank accounts, investments, credit cards and financial instruments. The defendant has illegally and unilaterally assumed digital and operational control over the plaintiff’s assets, by registering his mobile number, email ID and credentials as the primary authentication mechanism for the plaintiff’s:

a. Bank accounts;

b. Demat accounts;

c. Mutual fund folios;

d. E-banking platforms; and e. Credit cards.

5. Resultantly, the plaintiff submits that she does not receive OTPs/alerts and cannot access or operate her own accounts independently.

6. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she is a 15% share-holder of Alok International Private Limited and the sole proprietor of Ozar Industries. She submits that the defendant has recently blocked the Plaintiff’s credit card and had previously blocked another card of her’s, thereby disrupting the plaintiff’s access to funds required for household, personal, and child related expense.

7. The plaintiff also claims that a fixed deposit of which the plaintiff was the primary holder and owner of Rs. 83,36,156/- which matured on 08.11.2024 has been liquidated by the defendant without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

8. So far as the main reliefs in the suit are concerned, the same are extracted as under:

“i. Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant his agents, representatives or any person acting under his instructions, from operating, accessing, altering, modifying, transferring, redeeming, blocking or otherwise dealing with any of the Plaintiff’s movable assets and financial instruments, including bank accounts, demat accounts, mutual fund folios, fixed deposits, credit cards and any other investments described in Schedule A and Schedule B to this plaint; and ii. Restrain the Defendant from blocking the Plaintiff from getting exclusive and independent access to her financial assets, including restoration of her own mobile number, email ID, OTP access, login credentials, contact details and operational control over her accounts, credit cards and investments; and iii. Restrain the Defendant from preventing banks and other relevant financial institutions including ICICI, HDFC, American Express and others as per Schedule A and B from grating the Plaintiff exclusive and independent access to her financial assets, including restoration of her own mobile number, email ID, OTP access, login credentials, contact details and operational control over her accounts and investments; and iv. For the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to continue to pay all credit card statements and not to block or terminate any credit card; and v. Restrain the Defendant from transferring proceeds of any of the accoun