$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 08.01.2024 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 7/2024 SHANTALA PALAT ..... Appellant Through: Mr Puneet Yadav with Mr Sourabh Gupta, Ms Ananya Gupta and Mr Akshansh Gupta, Advocates along with appellant in person.

versus JAYAKUMAR MENON ..... Respondent Through: Ms Shreya Singhal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 921/2024

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 7/2024 and CM APPL. 920/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice.

2.1 Ms Shreya Singhal, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. Counsel for the parties say that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself.

3.1 Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 7/2024 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:ATUL the learned Judge, Family Court-02, South-East, Saket, New Delhi.

4.1 The operative directions which have been issued by the learned Judge are set forth hereafter:

“9. After due consideration of the settled legal propositions, vide order dated 27.05.2023, the petitioner was allowed overnight custody of Aditya from Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon during summer vacations. In view of the objections/no objection raised by the respondent to the claimed reliefs and in order to further develop the bonding between the petitioner and the minor son which is so much necessary for overall growth of the child, I deem it fit to issue following directions:

(i) Since both the parties are residing within the periphery of 1 km, overnight access from Friday after school to Sunday afternoon as prayed by the petitioner is allowed so that Aditya does not lose physical, psychological, emotional and social connect with the father. Hence, petitioner is allowed to pick-up Aditya on Friday evening and drop him back at 12:00 Noon on Sunday once in a month as per the wishes and comfort of the child. During this period the respondent is allowed to have video/phone call with the child during reasonable time and for reasonable duration. It is fervently hoped that both petitioner and the respondent will extend their sincere cooperation in this regard and will not try to impose their respective wishes to the discomfort of the child.

(ii) Day access to minor child once in a week is declined as the same will disturb the school schedule of the minor child.

(iii) Arrangements have already been made for unsupervised audio/video call vide order dated 27.05 .2023.

(iv) There is nothing on record to show if the minor child is having personal mobile phone hence, prayer 'd' of the petitioner cannot be considered.”

5. The point of inflection between the parties veers around the direction contained in paragraph 9(i) of the impugned order i.e., the leeway given for having the child stay with the respondent/father once a month albeit over a weekend. Significantly, it has been underscored by the learned Judge that this direction would operate without placing the child in discomfiture.

Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 7/2024 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:ATUL

6. Ms Singhal, on instructions, says that if the child conveys his intent to stay the night over a weekend, only then the direction contained in the order would remain operable. Ms Singhal submits that in case the child expresses reluctance to stay overnight, the court may to overcome such eventuality put in place alternate measures.

6.1 Counsel for the appellant agrees to the suggestion made by Ms Singhal.

7. Accordingly, paragraph 9(i) of the impugned order is modified to the following extent:

7.1 The direction contained in paragraph 9(i) of the impugned order requiring the child to stay overnight with respondent/father would continue only if the child expresses his willin