Educated Parents Embroiled In Marital Discord Tutoring & Influencing Children Unfortunate: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering a Contempt Petition filed by the Father alleging that the Wife obstructed implementation of the order of the Family Court by continuing to interfere during visitation hours particularly by holding the minor child’s hand during visitation at the mall.
The Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot countenance the practice of even educated parents embroiled in marital discord, subjecting the children to constant tutoring and influence.
The Court was considering a Contempt Petition filed by the father alleging that the wife obstructed implementation of the order of the Family Court by continuing to interfere during visitation hours, particularly by holding the minor child’s hand during visitation at the mall.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, "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 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. 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. The Court cannot countenance this practice and must impress upon the parties that it is their solemn duty to allow the child to grow in a free and nurturing atmosphere, unburdened by the acrimony between the parents."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Prashant Mendiratta, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rishi Manchanda.
Facts of the Case
Counsel for the wife contended that the minor child, being barely five years of age, continues to exhibit discomfort in the absence of the mother, and that compelling unsupervised interaction with the father is contrary to the child’s welfare.
It was contended that the husband, in the past, has displayed aggressive behaviour, and on one occasion even attempted to forcibly pull the child, thereby endangering his safety. Reliance was placed upon the report of the Child Psychologist, AIIMS, to urge that the child has not yet developed the requisite level of comfort with the father to justify unsupervised visitation. It was further argued that the husband has not contributed towards the maintenance or upbringing of the minor and lacks a permanent residence in Delhi, which renders the arrangement impracticable.
On the other hand, Counsel for the husband submitted that the limited supervised visitation granted earlier had not facilitated any meaningful bonding between the father and the son. It was argued that the reports of both the Court Counsellor and the Child Psychologist unmistakably demonstrate that the child has been gradually developing comfort with the father and that more frequent and independent interaction is in the child’s best interest.
It was contended that the wife deliberately obstructed the interaction between the father and the child and has been tutoring the child against him. It was also submitted that she continues to interfere during visitation, as is evident from the Contempt Petition, wherein it was alleged that she holds the child’s hand throughout the visitation hours in the mall, thereby defeating the spirit of the order under challenge.
Reasoning By Court
The Court noted that while adjudicating disputes pertaining to custody or visitation, the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child, and not the competing rights of the parents.
"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 Court observed.
It concluded that the impugned order by the Family Court warranted no interference.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Vivek Malhotra vs. Shilpa Sood (2025:DHC:8134-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocates Prashant Mendiratta, Akshat Kaushik, Sakshi Jain and Vaishnavi Saxena
Respondent- Advocates Rishi Manchanda, Siddharth Mullick and Lakhan Gupta
Click here to read/ download Order