$~16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 07.11.2025

+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 394/2025, CM APPL. 69225/2025 and CM APPL. 69226/2025

REETIKA .....Appellant

Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Kanika Baweja, Mr. Rishabh Dahiya, Ms. Jaishree Bhadauria and Ms Spriha Jha, Advs.

versus

RAJINDER KUMAR JINDAL & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Ashwini Kumar and Mr. Shubh Goyal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 27.09.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IJ’] passed by the Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘FC’], whereby the Guardianship Petition (GP) filed by the Respondents/Grandparents was rejected. However, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the FC granted the Respondents/Grandparents limited visitation rights; specifically, one opportunity to meet their 17-year-old granddaughter/minor child.

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Appeal are that the Appellant was married to Mr. Puneet Jindal, son of the Respondents’, out of the said wedlock a daughter was born on 28.08.2008. Unfortunately, Mr. Puneet Jindal passed away on 18.11.2012, leaving behind his widow (the Appellant) and their minor daughter [hereinafter referred to as ‘minor child’]. Subsequently, on 27.11.2015, the Respondents filed the GP under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of the minor child. However, it is pertinent to note that prior to the filing of the said GP, the Appellant had remarried Mr. Parveen Aggarwal on 29.04.2013, who also has a son from his previous marriage.

3. While adjudicating the GP, the FC declined to appoint the Respondent No.1 as a guardian of the minor child, nevertheless, a single opportunity was granted to them to meet the child for two and a half hours on 2nd Saturday of November 2025 at 12 Noon at Embassy Restaurant, 11-D, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Additionally, the FC also directed the maternal grandfather to deposit Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to Rs. 52 lakhs against a sale of freehold plot bearing no. 62 situated at Northex, Model Town, Delhi-110009 purchased in the joint names of the Appellant and late Mr. Puneet Jindal, now belonging to the minor child, before the Court, enabling her to withdraw the amount upon attaining the age of majority, i.e. 18 years. Significantly, this sum of Rs. 52 lakhs had been handed over by the brother of the Respondent No.1 to widow of his deceased nephew, towards her share in the property.

4. This Bench has heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance has perused the paper book as well as the trial court record.

5. Learned senior counsel representing the Appellant, while controverting the directions of the FC has made the following submissions :-

5.1 It is contended that the minor child has, till date, remained unaware of the identity of her biological father. She has always been under an impression that Mr. Parveen Aggarwal, the Appellant’s second husband, is her real father. It is submitted that any meeting with the Respondents may inevitably lead to disclosure of this fact and such disclosure may cause serious emotional disturbance to the minor child.

5.2 It is further contended that the applications previously filed by the Respondents seeking interim visitation rights were dismissed by the FC but were never challenged before any higher courts.

5.3 It has also been emphasized by the learned senior counsel that the Respondents have not met the minor child for nearly 12 years, and at this stage, when the child is at a crucial stage of her studies and in her academic career, any sudden reintroduction to the grandparents into her life has the potential to cause emotional distress and disruption.

5.4 Addition