SH KSHITIZ SAXENA v. MS. DEEPALI SAXENA

$~16 & 55

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1949/2024 CM APPL. 24530/2025 + CONT.CAS(C) 1679/2024 CM APPL. 24533/2025 SH KSHITIZ SAXENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Garg, Adv.

versus

MS. DEEPALI SAXENA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Faisal Zafar, Adv. Mr. Sumair Ali, Adv. Mr. Asim, Adv. With Respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 25.04.2025

1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to press for conte mpt of inter alia three orders dated 22nd October 2024, 31st October 2023 and 06th June 2024.

The three orders are extracted as under:

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

2. Broadly, the issue concerns the resistance to visit ation of the minor daughter, who is now 12 years of age, in favour of the petitioner/father. The parties have separated and no divorce proceedings a re pending. The aforesaid orders have been passed in Guardian Petition No. 29/2023 .

3. The respondent, Ms. Deepali Saxena , and the minor, Ms. Samaira Saxena, are both present in Court.

4. Upon interaction with the minor daughter, she has categorically stated that she does not want to meet the father and in fa ct gets emotionally distressed the moment the same is suggested.

5. On this account and in the spirit of this Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded to peruse the various order-sheets of the Family Court in this regard, filed by the couns el for the respondent.

6. Even in the orders of which compliance is sought by the petitioner, there are repeated references to the extreme reluct ance of the child in meeting the father, both, physically or through VC:

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 (i) In order dated 22nd October 2024 as extracted above, it is noted that with regard to the special visitation rights on the occasion of Diwali, the Judge, Family Court notes that the c hild was brought and the petitioner was given an opportunity to meet the child in the visitation room and immediately therea fter, the respondent returned in the Court Room with the child who was crying profusely. Even then, the respondent stated that she will try and convince the child and bring the child to Metro Walk at 2:30 P.M., when the petitioner can come and meet th e child, if the child is comfortable. The Judge further records that seeing the mental state of the child, as displayed in the Court, the petitioner was advised not to force himself on the child to an extent that the child develops abhorrence towards h im.

(ii) In the order dated 31 st October 2023, in relation to an application that more frequent visitations should be given to the petitioner, the parties were heard at length. The directions were then made for VC visitation, once a week, with flex ible duration. The Judge, Family Court recorded, that i t was being left to the parties to arrive at an understanding f or such a meeting, subject to the comfort and willingness of the child.

(iii) In the order dated 06 th June 2024, in an application seeking physical visitation, the petitioner pressed for phy sical meeting of the child on the occasion of her birthday for about two hours.

The same was allowed.

7. The Court also notes various other orders in which observations regarding the extreme reluctance of the minor daugh ter are recorded as 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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 under:

(i) In the order dated 30th January 2023 where it was stated by the ASJ, Rohini Courts in CA No.10/2023 (which was an a ppeal against the order of the Mahila Court where order w as passed that the female child was not inclined to contact the father and the Trial Court had in fact restrained the father from contacting the female child either at school or at any place) the ASJ thought it fit to hear the views of the then 9½ yea r old child.

On the same day, the interaction occurred in the Ch ambers where it is recorded that after speaking with the child the child was not comfortable for a physical meeting with her father and, therefore, VC meetings would be arranged.

(ii) On 24 th August 2024 in GP No.29/2023 , the Judge, Family Court had recorded that the child had shown absolut e unwillingness to any physical meetings with the fat her as she was reluctant, even for contact through VC, stating that the father had been rude and threatening towards her. That the Court was then of the view that the child meeting t he father would result in nothing but forcing her to go against her wishes and would impact her adversely, and therefore, meet ings through VC were to be continued.

(iii) On 09 th December 2022, it was recorded by the MM, Mahila Court, that after examination it was observed that the child was not inclined to see or contact the father and the p etitioner was directed not to make any contact with the child, ei ther at her school or any other place.

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 (iv) On 19 th July 2023 while disposing of an application, the Revisionist Court had modified the order allowing V C access, it was noted that the Court had examined the minor child and she did not show any interest in meeting her father. The Court noted that even though the child was aged 10 years and may not be capable to decide complex relationships, the onl y factor to be looked at, was the welfare of the child. Visita tion was, therefore, allowed once a month on a specified time .

(v) On 08th August 2023 in GP No.29/2023, the Court attempted an interaction with the child and a Memorandum of Interaction has been placed on record. The Memorandum of Interaction reads as under:

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

(vi) On 16 th August 2023, the Judge, Family Court recorded that since the child was consistently expressing a lack of interest in meeting the father, the Court was of the view that more frequent visitation with the father may affect the child adversely, and therefore, directions were given for physical visitation for one day. The request for enhancemen t of visitation/physical meetings, made by the petitione r, stood 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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 declined.

(vii) On 05 th November 2024, the Family Court noted that the respondent had appeared with the child and the Court interacted with the child and was of the opinion that the physical meetings with the child could be counter-productive, and the refore, decided to continue the VC meetings.

8. Most specifically, counsel for the respondent had p ointed out to the Court that the order dated 05th November 2024 that had been suppressed by the petitioner.

9. After a perusal of this order, the Court inquired from the petitioner as to the reasons for this suppression.

10. Counsel for the petitioner responded that this order was not relevant.

11. In order to assess this, the said order is extracte d as under:

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53

12. Counsel for the respondent points out that the issue is still pending in Guardianship Petition No. 29/2023 , in relation to the assessment of the psychological evaluation, directed by the Court.

13. The Court is astonished as to how the petitioner so ught to present these contempt petitions by selectively choosing to place on record certain 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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 orders and not the others.

14. The order dated 05 th November 2024, which the petitioner states, is not relevant, as can be seen from a bare perusal of the order, relates to very cogent and categorical observations by the Family C ourt, recording synoptically, about the applications which had been moved by the petitioner earlier, regarding visitation.

15. The Court then went on to state that the child show ed absolute unwillingness of physical meetings with the petitioner and rightly recorded that “…The welfare of the child is paramount and I am of t he view that further pushing the child to meet her father would adversely affect her development and may be detrimental to her mental state…”.

16. The Court finds the conduct of the petitioner itsel f an affront to the majesty of the Court, by not only selectively relyi ng on some orders, but also, suppressing other orders which would have brought before the Court a full conspectus of overall facts and circumstances.

17. As noticed from the traversal above, the Family Cou rt in the guardianship petition is totally cognizant of the matter and has taken pains over many dates to interact with the child and sens itively deal with the matter.

18. After the traversal of all the orders as extracted above, counsel for the petitioner still wishes to submit that order of 05th November 2024 and other orders are not relevant. The said insistence by the counsel for the petitioner is itself specious and is an attempt to somehow for ce petitioner on a child who is completely not in a mental state, currently, to meet the father.

19. In the opinion of this Court, the Judge, Family Court, have sensitively dealt with the matter and are still seized of the m atter, where these aspects 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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 are being considered, as regards the issue of visit ation.

20. Counsel for the respondent has also taken up an iss ue of maintainability of this petition, considering the n ature of the orders which have been passed, determination of which, is still subsisting before the Family Court.

21. Considering these facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner to ride roughshod in this manner and he ought to have shown some restraint so that the guardianship petit ion can be suitably decided; but the multiple applications filed by the petitioner seem to suggest otherwise.

22. Counsel for the petitioner states that all he is seeking is access to the child.

23. Needless to state, the above narration makes it extremely difficult for this Court to go to accede to his wish, as noted ab ove. Considering the sensitivity of the situation, it would be better that the Family Court continues with its process.

24. Counsel for the petitioner also wishes to draw atte ntion to the counsellor’s report which forms part of the DV record, and is therefore, not confidential, as asserted by both the counsels.

25. In the first session, the counsellor had tried to m ake the child comfortable and counsel the child after which she got a bit comfortable and after an hour, she became normal.

26. Certain observations had been noted by the counsellor of attempts for communication to be established.

27. It is stated in the counsellor’s report from the session on 2 nd September 2023, as follows:

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53 “…respondent tried hard to communicate with the child but she didn’t even look at him once. In the entire two-hour session child was crying and was not even ready to talk with the respondent. She was completely glued with her mother. Today, also respo ndent tried to express his love towards the child through gift but she didn’t appreciate his love and affection.”

28. Only parts of the counselling report have been recorded in view of the privacy of parties. Much water has flowed since, as is noted by the orders stated above.

29. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of, with directions to the Family Court to continue its proceeding, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, including the desire for the petitioner to meet the child, as well as the mental state of the child, as also t he evaluation of the child which had already been directed by the Court.

30. Liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue approp riate remedies subsequently, after these aspects of visitation, to grant the visitation or not, have fully fructified before the Family Court.

31. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J

APRIL 25, 2025/MK/kp

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 30/04/2025 at 15:54:53