Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocate DHCLSC v. RAJENDER KAUR

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. CM APPL. 51873/2025 (Delay of 66 days in Re-filing the appeal) 1. By way of the present application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the present appeal. 2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 51871/2025 (Delay of 46 days in filing the appeal) 3. By way of the present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal. 4. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 1 of 4

5. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 51872/2025 (exemption)

6. 7. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025

8. The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890 read with Section 47 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assails the correctness of the ex-parte order dated 28.02.2025 (“Impugned Order”), passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court - 01, West District, Tis Hazari Court, in GP No. 02/2020 (“said petition”). Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant herein under Sections 7 & 25 of the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890, read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. 9. In substance, the Appellant prays for custody and visitation rights to meet his two children, who are now nearly 12 & 13 years old. Admittedly, the Appellant separated from the family, including the children, in the year 2016. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant preferred the said petition before the learned Family Court only in the year 2020, in which the Appellant’s wife (Respondent herein) was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2022. The learned Family Court, after interacting with the children, made the following observation in Paragraph 10 of the Impugned Order:- I n t h e c a se in hand, both the children are aged about 12 & 13 “ 1 0 . years respectively. During Court interaction, they both were found to be intelligent and confident enough. They confirmed that their mother is not living with them but she seldomly telephonically talks MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 2 of 4 living with them. The children are their maternal grandparents (Nana-Nani), with whom they are happy and comfortable. The children expressed their complete reluctance to meet their father due to his misbehaviour with them. The children told that they are fearful of his father that he may harm them. The daughter of the parties said that she has all the bad memories about her father as to how he used to hit and beat her mother. The son of the parties said that he does not remember anything about his father. It is relevant to note that at the time the parties got separated 2016/2017, the son of the parties was less than 3 years old. The Court cannot brush aside the wishes of the children. The children are separated from their father for considerable period of 8 years. The father's prolonged absence of 8 years has resulted a significant gap between him and the children, who were in their formative years. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay of four years in filing the present petition, as the respondent left the petitioner's company in 2016 and the petitioner was not filed until 2020. Notably, the petitioner did not exercise his visitation rights since the case was filed in 2020. This extended separation has led the children to adapt living with their mother and maternal grandparents. Although, Court father's involvement is crucial for a child's healthy development, but in this case, the father's own action or lacks has contributed to this distance. Given those circumstances, the Court is concerned that petitioner's re-entry into the children's lives may potentially disrupt their growth and well-being. Having regard to the welfare of the children, the Court is of the considered view that giving regular visitation rights to the petitioner/father to meet his children, may adversely affect their mental and physical health. Accordingly, the p r e s e n t is conscious p e t i o n i t i s h e r e b y d i s m i s s e d . . ”

11. Before deciding the issue of custody or visitation rights, the learned Family Court is required to consider the circumstances and keep in mind the welfare of the children. In the present case, both the children are residing with their maternal grandparents and have expressed their reluctance to meet the Appellant i.e. their father. The son was less than 3 years of age when he last met the Appellant. The children do not have pleasant memories of their father. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant, being the natural guardian of the children, has the right to take custody of them, particularly when they are residing with their maternal MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 3 of 4 grandparents, who are likely to be of an advanced age. He submits that the Court must make an attempt to grant an opportunity to the father to break the ice and make an attempt for reintroduction. 13. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant. 14. Upon putting a pointed query, learned counsel for the Appellant fairly admitted that the Appellant has not produced any material to show that he has ever made any contribution towards the welfare of the children. 15. It is evident that the Appellant is now seeking re-entry into the life of his children after a prolonged period of nearly 8 years. 16. It is pertinent to reiterate herein that the learned Family Court has already interacted with the children and, in Paragraph 10 of the Impugned Order, noticed the children’s wishes. We are also of the considered view that given the conspectus of the facts and circumstances existing in the present matter, and considering the wishes and welfare of the children, we see no infirmity in the Impugned Order. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order dated

28.02.2025, passed by the learned Family Court. 18. Accordingly, the present Appeal along with pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. AUGUST 22, 2025/tk/va HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 4 of 4

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. CM APPL. 51873/2025 (Delay of 66 days in Re-filing the appeal) 1. By way of the present application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the present appeal. 2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 51871/2025 (Delay of 46 days in filing the appeal) 3. By way of the present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal. 4. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 1 of 4

5. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 51872/2025 (exemption)

6. 7. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025

8. The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890 read with Section 47 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assails the correctness of the ex-parte order dated 28.02.2025 (“Impugned Order”), passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court - 01, West District, Tis Hazari Court, in GP No. 02/2020 (“said petition”). Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant herein under Sections 7 & 25 of the Guardians and Ward Act, 1890, read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956. 9. In substance, the Appellant prays for custody and visitation rights to meet his two children, who are now nearly 12 & 13 years old. Admittedly, the Appellant separated from the family, including the children, in the year 2016. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant preferred the said petition before the learned Family Court only in the year 2020, in which the Appellant’s wife (Respondent herein) was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2022. The learned Family Court, after interacting with the children, made the following observation in Paragraph 10 of the Impugned Order:- I n t h e c a se in hand, both the children are aged about 12 & 13 “ 1 0 . years respectively. During Court interaction, they both were found to be intelligent and confident enough. They confirmed that their mother is not living with them but she seldomly telephonically talks MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 2 of 4 living with them. The children are their maternal grandparents (Nana-Nani), with whom they are happy and comfortable. The children expressed their complete reluctance to meet their father due to his misbehaviour with them. The children told that they are fearful of his father that he may harm them. The daughter of the parties said that she has all the bad memories about her father as to how he used to hit and beat her mother. The son of the parties said that he does not remember anything about his father. It is relevant to note that at the time the parties got separated 2016/2017, the son of the parties was less than 3 years old. The Court cannot brush aside the wishes of the children. The children are separated from their father for considerable period of 8 years. The father's prolonged absence of 8 years has resulted a significant gap between him and the children, who were in their formative years. Furthermore, there was a substantial delay of four years in filing the present petition, as the respondent left the petitioner's company in 2016 and the petitioner was not filed until 2020. Notably, the petitioner did not exercise his visitation rights since the case was filed in 2020. This extended separation has led the children to adapt living with their mother and maternal grandparents. Although, Court father's involvement is crucial for a child's healthy development, but in this case, the father's own action or lacks has contributed to this distance. Given those circumstances, the Court is concerned that petitioner's re-entry into the children's lives may potentially disrupt their growth and well-being. Having regard to the welfare of the children, the Court is of the considered view that giving regular visitation rights to the petitioner/father to meet his children, may adversely affect their mental and physical health. Accordingly, the p r e s e n t is conscious p e t i o n i t i s h e r e b y d i s m i s s e d . . ”

11. Before deciding the issue of custody or visitation rights, the learned Family Court is required to consider the circumstances and keep in mind the welfare of the children. In the present case, both the children are residing with their maternal grandparents and have expressed their reluctance to meet the Appellant i.e. their father. The son was less than 3 years of age when he last met the Appellant. The children do not have pleasant memories of their father. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant, being the natural guardian of the children, has the right to take custody of them, particularly when they are residing with their maternal MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 3 of 4 grandparents, who are likely to be of an advanced age. He submits that the Court must make an attempt to grant an opportunity to the father to break the ice and make an attempt for reintroduction. 13. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant. 14. Upon putting a pointed query, learned counsel for the Appellant fairly admitted that the Appellant has not produced any material to show that he has ever made any contribution towards the welfare of the children. 15. It is evident that the Appellant is now seeking re-entry into the life of his children after a prolonged period of nearly 8 years. 16. It is pertinent to reiterate herein that the learned Family Court has already interacted with the children and, in Paragraph 10 of the Impugned Order, noticed the children’s wishes. We are also of the considered view that given the conspectus of the facts and circumstances existing in the present matter, and considering the wishes and welfare of the children, we see no infirmity in the Impugned Order. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the Impugned Order dated

28.02.2025, passed by the learned Family Court. 18. Accordingly, the present Appeal along with pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. AUGUST 22, 2025/tk/va HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 300/2025 Page 4 of 4