SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, DHARMESH SHARMA, JJ.
 
Vishal Verma - Petitioner 
Versus 
State Govt. of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondent 
W.P. (CRL) 2808 of 2024 & Crl. M.A. 110 of 2025 
Decided on : 16-01-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Dutt Dixit and Mr. Sumit Rajpoot
For the Respondent: Ms. Divya Upadhyay, Adv. r wife, Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Adv., Ms. Anu Narula, Adv., Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC

The welfare of the child is paramount, requiring both parents to foster a loving relationship and avoid parental alienation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of habeas corpus - Visitation rights - The court directed interim visitation arrangements for the minor child, emphasizing the need for both parents to maintain civility and cooperation to avoid trauma to the child - The mother was instructed not to obstruct the father's visitation rights and to ensure a supportive environment for the child - The court highlighted the importance of the child's welfare and the detrimental effects of parental alienation - The father was granted visitation rights, with specific arrangements for the child's pick-up and drop-off by a counselor to ensure compliance and minimize conflict. (Paras 21, 9, 10, 12, 28, 30)

(B) Child Welfare - The court underscored that the welfare of the child is paramount, requiring both parents to foster a loving relationship with the child and avoid negative influences - The court noted the mother's non-compliance with visitation orders and the potential harm to the child's emotional well-being. (Paras 10, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a father, sought a writ of habeas corpus for his minor son, facing challenges in visitation rights due to the mother's non-compliance with court orders. The court intervened to establish a visitation schedule and appointed a counselor to facilitate the process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the mother was creating obstacles to the father's visitation rights, which could harm the child's emotional health. The court ordered specific visitation arrangements and emphasized the need for both parents to cooperate.

Issues: The main issues included the enforcement of visitation rights and the impact of parental alienation on the child's welfare.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the welfare of the child is paramount, and both parents must facilitate a loving relationship with the child, avoiding any actions that could lead to emotional distress or alienation.

Result: The court directed the child to be handed over to the father and his family until 20th January 2025, with specific arrangements for communication with the mother.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed seeking writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the production of Petitioner’s minor son. The matter was first listed on 11th September, 2024. Thereafter, several detailed orders were passed by this Court taking into consideration details of all the pending cases between the Petitioner (father of the child) and Respondent No. 2 (mother of the child). Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of vide a detailed judgement dated 11th December, 2024 in the following terms:

“DIRECTIONS

21. Accordingly, upon considering all the above- mentioned facts, mediation report and conduct of the parties the following directions are passed:

Arrangement with respect to Petitioner-Father’s visitation I. As an interim arrangement, let the child visit the Petitioner-Father twice a month from Friday evening, after school, till Saturday evening at 05:00 pm. The Petitioner-Father is free to pick up the child from the school on Friday after school and drop him back at Respondent No.2-Mother’s place of residence on Saturday by 05:00 pm. It is informed that the C.M.(Main) petition is stated to be pending and listed before the ld. Single Judge on 19th December 2024. The ld. Single Judge may consider passing an appropriate arrangement for the winter vacation as also the interim arrangement.

II. The Respondent No. 2-Mother has also assured the Court that she would not create any obstruction and would guide the child in a manner so that he can peacefully accompany the Petitioner-Father during his visits. The mother and father shall maintain civility between each other and cooperate in ensuring that the arrangement, that has been put in place, is successful and that the child is not traumatized in any manner. III. There shall be no photography or videography of the child unnecessarily during his pick or drop inter se the parties.

IV. Petitioner-Father and Respondent No.2-Mother shall ensure that they do not try to, in any manner, brainwash the child against the other during the period when the child is with either of them, as it has become obvious to the Court during interactions that the child tends to repeat what is told to him.

V. The Respondent No.2-Mother and the child shall not be allowed to leave the country without permission of the ld. Single Judge. The child shall continue to study in Mount Carmel School.

VI. The father shall continue to pay the monthly amount as submitted to the Court.”

3. In terms of the said judgement dated 11th December, 2024, specific arrangement was made for the visitation of the child with the father. In addition, the parties were to appear before the ld. Mediator on 16th December, 2024 to explore mediation. In the meantime, the judgment dated 11th December, 2024 was challenged by the wife/Respondent No. 2 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 20th December, 2024 in SLA Crl. No 18175/2024 issued the following directions:

“1. Heard Ms. Divya Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (wife). Also heard Ms. Gauri Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 (husband).

2. As the 7 year 8 months old son is residing with the mother and the father is provided with visitation rights including two overnight visitations every month, we feel that for the best interest of the child, who must receive love, care and attention from both parents, the arrangement ordered by the High Court on 11.12.2024, needs to be given chance to continue for a while.

3. As the petitioner has suffered a recent bereavement in the family, for the first overnight visitation, the father will pick up his son on 22.12.2024 at 11:00 a.m. from the agreed point in Connaught Place, as designated by the High Court. The father will handover the custody of the son to the mother at the same time at the same place, on the next day. This is only for the first day

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top