Delhi High Court | Child’s Welfare Paramount Under Guardians and Wards Act | ‘Disheartening’ That Educated Parents Tutor or Influence Children | Visitation Rights Upheld
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a Family Court order granting unsupervised visitation rights to the father of a minor child, dismissing the mother’s challenge and disposing of the father’s contempt plea. The Court, applying the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, held that the welfare of the child is paramount, warning against the practice of estranged parents tutoring or influencing their children. It observed that such conduct causes irreparable harm to a child’s personality, self-confidence, and emotional growth, and affirmed the need for balanced parental interaction.
The case before the Delhi High Court arose from a dispute between estranged spouses regarding custody and visitation rights of their minor child, born in September 2019. The child has remained in the custody of the mother, while the father sought custody and visitation under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
In August 2022, the Family Court granted the father limited physical visitation on the third Saturday of each month and permitted virtual interactions through video calls twice a week. In May 2023, pursuant to directions of the High Court, the matter was referred to a Court Counsellor. The counsellor’s report in September 2023 noted that the child was comfortable in the father’s presence but displayed separation anxiety when the mother attempted to step outside the room. Subsequently, the case was referred to a psychologist at AIIMS, who reported in December 2023 that the child initially showed discomfort but gradually engaged with the father, though the mother’s protective presence prevented independent interaction.
Based on these reports, the Family Court, on 23 September 2024, directed that the father would have unsupervised visitation with the child on the first and fourth Saturday of each month, between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, at a neutral venue. The mother challenged this arrangement by filing an appeal, citing concerns about the child’s young age, prior alleged incidents of aggressive conduct, lack of financial support, and absence of a permanent residence in Delhi. The father supported the order and separately filed a contempt petition, alleging obstruction of visitation by the mother, including interference during scheduled meetings.
The High Court considered both the appeal and the contempt petition together, assessing the reports, the submissions of both sides, and the statutory framework under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
The Court observed 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.”
It stated that “the law is well settled that a child of tender years requires the love, affection, and guidance of both parents, and the estrangement of the parents ought not to deprive the child of the emotional security and healthy environment that comes from an active relationship with both father and mother.”
The Bench further recorded that “in cases where parents are embroiled in marital discord, it is often seen that the child becomes the subject of constant tutoring and influence by either side. Such conduct, instead of serving the child’s welfare, inflicts irreparable harm upon his or her personality, self-confidence, and emotional growth.”
The Court stated: “It is indeed disheartening that even educated parents, who ought to be more conscious of their parental responsibilities, engage in such conduct to the detriment of their own children.”
It also noted that “the minor child is in the exclusive care and custody of the mother and, as a natural corollary, has developed greater attachment and dependence upon her.” However, it recorded that “the reports of both the Counsellor and the Psychologist indicate that the child is gradually becoming comfortable in the company of the father and has not shown any signs of hostility or rejection towards him.”
Finally, the Bench observed that “the difficulty primarily arises from the child’s separation anxiety and the mother’s overprotective presence during visitation, which hinders the possibility of independent interaction between the father and the child.”
It stated: “Having considered the overall circumstances, we are of the view that no interference with the Impugned Order is called for at this stage. Any modification in the visitation arrangement, if warranted by subsequent events or the evolving needs of the child, can be appropriately considered by the learned Family Court, which remains the competent forum to monitor and regulate such arrangements.”
“In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2024 does not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The arrangement directed therein is in consonance with the welfare of the minor child and seeks to progressively facilitate a healthy relationship with both parents.”
“Insofar as the grievance of the Respondent-Father with respect to alleged obstruction in the exercise of visitation rights is concerned, the same is in the nature of an implementation issue, which appropriately falls within the domain of the Family Court. The parties are, therefore, relegated to their remedy before the Family Court for seeking any modification, clarification, or enforcement of the Impugned Order, as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Sakshi Jain, and Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Mr. Siddharth Mullick, and Mr. Lakhan Gupta, Advocates
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8134-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 426/2024 and CONT.CAS(C) 876/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
