The welfare of the minor is paramount in determining visitation rights, and modifications must be evidence-based to ensure the child's safety and emotional stability.

JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant-father assails the correctness of the order dated 15.12.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Family Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, allowed the application moved on behalf of the Respondent-mother seeking modification of the earlier order dated 14.11.2024 and, accordingly, modified the visitation arrangement by directing that the Appellant shall meet the minor daughter on the 2^nd and 4^th Saturday of every month at Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj,Delhi at 6:00 pm, for a duration of one hour, along with provision for video calls on 1^st and 3^rd Friday of every month at 6:00 pm, for a duration of 20 minutes, while keeping the remaining conditions of the earlier order intact.

2. The short issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the learned Family Court committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in modifying the interim visitation arrangement, by reducing the extent and frequency of visitation, in exercise of its discretionary powers, keeping in view the welfare of the minor daughter as the paramount consideration?

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, the relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, may be briefly noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.10.2019 and out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born on 23.01.2021. Subsequently, marital discord arose between the parties, leading to the initiation of family court proceedings, inter alia, with respect to custody and visitation of the minor daughter.

4. Initially, the Family Court on 31.07.2023, passed a detailed order regulating the visitation of the Appellant-father with the minor daughter. The order provided a structured visitation schedule, the details of which were later modified, after deliberation and consideration, on 14.11.2024. By the said order dated 14.11.2024, the Family Court recorded that the Appellant-father was permitted to meet the minor daughter at Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, Delhi at 6:00 pm on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday of every week, for a limited duration of one hour on each occasion. It was further directed that the Respondent-mother would bring the child to the designated play area on the 3^rd Floor of Ambience Mall and remain at a reasonable distance of 50 meters, so as to enable interaction between the Appellant and the minor daughter in a non-intrusive environment. The arrangement was expressly framed as an interim measure, subject to further orders of the Court.

5. Despite the interim visitation arrangement of 14.11.2024, disputes between the parties persisted. On 14.12.2024, an altercation arose between the Appellant and the mother of the Respondent at the shared household. It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the Appellant and his family members had carried tools to the premises and attempted to break open the doors, incidents which were allegedly witnessed by the minor daughter. FIR No. 0076 dated 29.01.2025 was registered with respect to the said incident, which remained under investigation at the relevant time.

6. Further incidents were alleged by the Respondent on 24.05.2025 and 10.07.2025, including disconnection of electricity, tampering with CCTV cameras, and removal of an iron gate at the shared residence. Complaints and applications under the Prot