MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The respondent filed a complaint case being CC No. 217/4/2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘PWDV Act’) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate inter alia seeking restraint against the petitioner from approaching or visiting the house of the respondent or her workplace and restraining him from committing any act of domestic violence. Prohibition was also sought against the petitioner from having any access to the minor child or coming to school of the child or to any other place where the minor child went for her extracurricular activity and also prohibiting the petitioner from removing the minor child from the custody of the respondent. In view of the interim relief sought vide order dated 19th November, 2014 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate restrained the petitioner from interfering with the custody of the minor daughter till the next date of hearing.

2. Served with the interim order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court for modification of the order dated 19th November, 2014 wherein on 26th November, 2014 an interim consent order was passed. As an interim measure the parties agreed that the minor child shall go to the place of the mother of the respondent on every Saturday till the next date from 10.00 AM to 10.00 AM Sunday and the petitioner shall be with the daughter for 24 hours.

3. The interim application filed by the respondent under Section 23 of the PWDV Act and that of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 19th November, 2014 under Section 25 of the PWDV Act was decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 9th November, 2015. Vide order dated 9th November, 2015 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate noting that the minor child was aged six years and was in the custody of the respondent, restrained the petitioner from removing the minor child from the custody of the respondent or from having any access to the minor child or visiting the child in school or at any of the place where she went for her extra-curricular activity. It was further directed that the petitioner shall have visitation rights twice a week on every Saturday and Sunday between 5.00 PM to 9.00 PM at the place mutually decided by the parties.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 25 of the PWDV Act seeking modification of the order dated 9th November, 2015 which was decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 2nd January, 2016 with rest of the conditions remaining the same, the visitation rights were extended from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd January, 2016 the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 8th March, 2016. Hence the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the father of the minor child is entitled to keep the child in custody even during night hours for the proper upbringing of the child so that the child can enjoy the company of the father as well.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent points out that the petitioner has concealed material facts before this Court and that he has shifted to Dubai without informing the Courts. Thus there is no clarity as to where he would keep the child when he is not residing in Delhi. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a custody petition before the learned Family Court which is the court of competent jurisdiction and vide order dated 26th December, 2016 the learned Family Court was pleased to decline the overnight custody of the minor child as the child was unwilling to stay with the father without the company of her mother and maternal grandparents. It is contended that the decision of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in guardianship petition would have precedence on th