The paramount importance of the child's welfare and the need to ensure a conducive and peaceful environment for visitation influenced the court's decision in modifying the visitation rights.

Headnote:
VISITATION RIGHTS - FAMILY LAW - [Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Indian Penal Code, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015] - The court modified the visitation rights granted to the respondent father, allowing visitation on specific days and at specific times, considering the change in the petitioner's residence and the child's admission to school. The court also directed initial meetings to take place in a public park or mall under the supervision of a nanny/maid for a period of 15 days to allow the child to re-develop acquaintance and get comfortable with the respondent.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent sought modification of the final judgment/order to allow unrestricted and unsupervised visitation with the minor child, citing changes in circumstances and the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought modification to deny physical visitation or to allow visitation at her current residence in Vasant Vihar. The respondent alleged hostile conduct by the petitioner, while the petitioner accused the respondent of conniving to oust her and the child from their previous residence.
Finding of the Court:

The court modified the visitation rights, considering the change in the petitioner's residence and the child's admission to school. It allowed visitation on specific days and at specific times, and directed initial meetings to take place in a public park or mall under the supervision of a nanny/maid for a period of 15 days to allow the child to re-develop acquaintance and get comfortable with the respondent.
Issues: The main issues were the modification of visitation rights in light of the change in residence and the child's admission to school, and the allegations of hostile conduct and connivance to oust the petitioner and the child from their previous residence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the paramount importance of the child's welfare and the need to ensure a conducive and peaceful environment for visitation. It also considered the interest and welfare of the child while granting visitation rights, as well as the need to prevent the use of custody as a tool to inflict suffering on the other parent.
Final Decision: The court modified the visitation rights granted to the respondent father, allowing visitation on specific days and at specific times, considering the change in the petitioner's residence and the child's admission to school. The court also directed initial meetings to take place in a public park or mall under the supervision of a nanny/maid for a period of 15 days to allow the child to re-develop acquaintance and get comfortable with the respondent.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPLs. 37994/2022 & 38169/2022

1. By this order, I shall decide the two applications filed by the respondent Veer Singh and the petitioner Kinri Dhir being CM No. 37994/2022 & CM. No. 38169/2022 respectively.

2. Before I deal with the submissions in the aforesaid applications, I intend to deal with application CM. 38585/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of an inadvertent typographical error in the affidavit accompanying CM. No. 38169/2022.

3. The rectification application is allowed, in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 therein and the errors in the affidavit are deemed to have been rectified.

4. Accordingly, CM. No. 38585/2022 stands disposed of.

CM. No. 37994/2022

5. This application has been filed by the respondent, Veer Singh, with the following prayers:

"a. Allow the present Application and thereby modify the Judgment and Final Order dated 24th March 2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CMM No. 1053 of 2021 in view of Order dated 7th June 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby allowing the Applicant/Respondent unrestricted and unsupervised visitation with the minor child; and/or

b. Any other orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

6. It is the case of the respondent that he is seeking modification of the final judgment/order dated March 24, 2022 in view of certain changes in the circumstances and in furtherance to the liberty granted to him by the Supreme Court vide its order dated June 07, 2022 passed in SLP bearing Civil No. 10149/2022.

7. It is stated that the Supreme Court in its order dated June 7, 2022 has partially modified the said order and held that the respondent shall have visitation as directed by this Court only till the time the petitioner is in occupation of the premises being 2nd Floor, C-99, Defence Colony, New Delhi while giving liberty to the respondent to seek appropriate orders in the event of the petitioner vacating the aforesaid accommodation.

8. It is stated that the petitioner along with the minor child has moved out of the premises being 2nd Floor C-99, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 w.e.f. July 31, 2022 and shifted to another premises being Ground Floor, F-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi w.e.f. August 1, 2022 pursuant to the order dated July 26, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MAT. APP. (FC) No. 2/22.

9. It is the submission of Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent has been incapacitated from undertaking visitation of the minor child for the last nine months because of the extremely hostile conduct of the petitioner towards the respondent. In this regard, he stated that when the petitioner and the respondent staying together, the respondent had always been at the receiving end of the petitioner's harsh and aggressive behavior including verbal as well as physical confrontation. The petitioner deliberately picked up trivial issues, wherein every conversation of the petitioner started turning abusive and violent resulting in the respondent limiting his conversation with the petitioner and requested her to put her thoughts regarding the well-being of the child on e-mails/messages. She had also threatened the respondent to the extent of implicating him in false cases. It is because of this behavior that the respondent moved out of the premises being 4th Floor to the third floor of the same building i.e., C-99, Defence Colony, New Delhi, in the month of March, 2021.

10. He used to spend most of the time with the child at the fourth floor. However, the respondent used to come down to the third floor after the child has slept. The fact that the respondent was consistently victim of the aggression of the petitioner can also be substantiated by the CCTV footages, when on one such occasion in August, 2021, the petitioner can be seen throwing all the belongings of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent sh