The Delhi High Court upheld an order of the Family Court granting limited unsupervised visitation rights to a father, despite objections raised by the mother. The Court was dealing with an appeal and a contempt petition concerning visitation arrangements for a minor child, and observed that the welfare and best interest of the child, not the competing rights of parents, must remain paramount.
The case arose out of matrimonial discord between estranged spouses, parents to a young son who has remained in the mother’s custody since birth. The father sought custody and visitation rights through proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. Initially, the Family Court permitted only supervised visitation and virtual interactions. Later, based on reports from a Court Counsellor and a Child Psychologist, it enhanced the father’s rights to include limited unsupervised visitation at a neutral venue. This order was challenged by the mother, while the father filed a contempt petition alleging obstruction during visitation hours.
Counsel for the mother argued that the child, being of tender age, continues to show separation anxiety and discomfort without her presence. It was further alleged that the father had displayed aggressive behaviour in the past, raising safety concerns. She relied on the psychologist’s report to contend that the child had not yet developed sufficient comfort to justify unsupervised interaction. Additionally, she submitted that the father had not contributed to the child’s maintenance and lacked a permanent residence in Delhi.
On the other hand, counsel for the father supported the Family Court’s order, arguing that supervised visitation was inadequate for meaningful bonding. It was contended that the reports clearly demonstrated the child’s gradual acceptance of the father and that independent interaction was essential in the child’s best interest. The father also alleged that the mother deliberately obstructed the visits, even holding the child’s hand throughout visitation hours to prevent free interaction.
The Court reiterated that in custody and visitation disputes, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, stating, “It must be borne in mind that while adjudicating disputes pertaining to custody or visitation, the paramount consideration before the Court is the welfare and best interest of the child, and not the competing rights of the parents.”
The Court further expressed concern over parental conduct in matrimonial disputes, “Unfortunately, in cases where parents are embroiled in marital discord, it is often seen that the child becomes the subject of constant tutoring and influence… Such conduct inflicts irreparable harm upon the child’s personality, self-confidence, and emotional growth.”
Referring to the reports of the Counsellor and Psychologist, the Court noted that while the child was naturally more attached to the mother, he was becoming increasingly comfortable with the father, and there were no signs of hostility or rejection. The real obstacle arose from separation anxiety and the mother’s overprotective presence, which prevented independent interaction.
The Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order granting unsupervised visitation, holding that it was consistent with the child’s welfare and aimed at gradually developing a healthy relationship with both parents. At the same time, it directed that any issues of obstruction or modification should be addressed before the Family Court as the competent authority. Consequently, both the appeal and the contempt petition were disposed of.
Case Title: X vs. Y
Case No.: Cont. Cas(C) 876/2025
Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rishi Manchanda, Siddharth Mullick, Lakhan Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Prashant Mendiratta, Akshat Kaushik, Sakshi Jain, Vaishnavi Saxena
Picture Source :
