Pattern Of Approaching Courts On Eve Of Vacation Periods To Stall Handover Of Child Detrimental To Her Welfare: Delhi High Court Dismisses Mother’s Appeal
The Delhi High Court was considering an appeal filed by a mother under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,1984.
While dismissing a mother’s appeal challenging the grant of custody of her minor daughter to the father for a few days, the Delhi High Court has held that a consistent pattern of approaching Courts on the eve of vacation periods to stall the handover of the child would be detrimental to the child’s welfare and her relationship with both parents.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,1984, against the order passed by the Family Court in a Guardianship Petition whereby the Respondent was granted exclusive custody of the minor girl child for a continuous period of sixteen days during the 2026 summer vacation.
The Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain held, “This Court is also mindful that delay in custody matters itself causes prejudice to the child. The minor child has a right to meaningful time with both her parents. A consistent pattern of approaching Courts on the eve of vacation periods to stall the handover of the child, if countenanced, would be detrimental to the child’s welfare and her relationship with both parents.”
Advocate Rohit Khurana represented the Appellant, while Advocate C.M. Grover represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Respondent father instituted the Guardianship Petition before the Family Court seeking permanent custody of the minor child. The Family Court granted interim custody and expanded visitation rights to the Respondent. The Appellant challenged the order, and the High Court suspended the interim custody. The mother then filed a contempt case before the Court for violations of multiple directions by the Respondent father. The Family Court granted limited custody of seven days for winter vacation, subject to specific safeguards to the Respondent.
The Appellant then filed an Additional Affidavit before the Court documenting violations during the winter custody period. The Respondent father filed a contempt case against the mother alleging non-compliance with visitation on four consecutive Saturdays. The High Court directed supervised Saturday visitation before a Child Counsellor at the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. The father also filed an application before the Family Court seeking summer vacation custody and vide the Impugned Order, he was granted exclusive custody of the minor child for sixteen continuous days from June 15, 2026, to June 30, 2026, along with five compensatory custody days.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the contentions and grievances raised by the appellant, the Bench noted that the Appellant’s grievances were based entirely upon the father’s conduct during the winter custody period of January 2026, that prohibited persons were present at pickup on January 5, 2026, and the father took the minor child on an undisclosed interstate trip in violation of the Court’s order.
“The Appellant cannot be permitted to agitate identical grievances simultaneously through this Appeal while the contempt proceedings are sub judice. The violations of Court directions shall be considered by the Contempt Court and cannot be agitated in this Appeal arising out of custody order. The Impugned Order has been passed after interaction with the minor child inchamber on 01.06.2026”, it added.
The Bench clarified that the pending contempt proceedings remained the proper forum for the Appellant’s grievances. Thus, holding that all the grievances of the Appellant regarding the Respondent’s conduct and non-compliance with judicial directions should be addressed within the framework of contempt proceedings, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: AB v. CD (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5133-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Rohit Khurana, Akshara Santosh
Respondent: Advocate M. Grover