##PAGE1##

$~3

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 432/2025, CM APPL. 80614/2025 (Stay) &

CM APPL. 80615/2025 (Ex.)

ARADHANA TRIPATHI, .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sudeep Dey, Adv.

versus

ANURAG KAKKAR .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aditya Arora & Mr.

Anirudh Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 19.12.2025

1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant

under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, assailing the Order

dated 11.12.2025 [“Impugned Order”] passed by the learned

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka, New

Delhi in MT. Case No. 30/19 titled “Anurag Kakkar vs. Aradhana

Tripathi.”

2. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court, while

declining the application filed by the Respondent for interim custody

of the minor child during winter vacations, has granted visitation

rights to him during the said period, i.e., from 25.12.2025 till

01.01.2025, from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm in Children room, Family

Court, Kolhapur, Maharashtra.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 11:52:51

3. The minor child, namely, Aadyaansh Raj Kakkar, aged about 12

years, is in the care and custody of the Appellant. The Respondent is

the biological father of the minor child.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Respondent

has been given visitation rights for the entire winter vacation, which

spoils the Christmas and New Year celebration of the minor child. It is

submitted that visitation rights for a period of 2-3 days would be

sufficient. It is further submitted that during summer vacations, the

Respondent was given 2 days of visitation to which the Appellant

never objected.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant further contends

that for the present issues between the parties, territorial jurisdiction

does not lie in Delhi.

6. As already noticed, the Respondent has been given permission

to meet the minor child for a period of 04 hours out of 24 hours. For

the remaining period of time, the minor child shall remain in the care

and custody of the Appellant.

7. Moreover, such visitation rights have been given only for a

period of 07 days, i.e., during winter vacations.

8. The place of visitation has been fixed at Kolhapur, Maharashtra,

where the minor child resides.

9. The Respondent, being the biological father, is also well

entitled to interact with the minor child in order to develop a bond

with him. Moreover, the minor child is an adolescent and would

require the company of his father.

10. Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the Order

impugned herein.

11. Accordingly, the present Appeal, along with all pending

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 11:52:51

application(s), if any, stands dismissed.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has also filed an

appeal against the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family

Court, which is yet to be decided. Needless to say, the rights and

contentions in the said Appeal are to be decided uninfluenced by the

order passed today.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2025/v/her

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/02/2026 at 11:52:51