Amritesh Jatia vs Vidhi Jatia

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 17.06.2026
Judgment delivered on: 22.06.2026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026, CM APPL. 38906/2026 & CM APPL.
38907/2026
AMRITESH JATIA .....Appellant
Versus
VIDHI JATIA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in these cases
For the Petitioner : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aadarsh Kothari and Ms. Aparna
Bhadoria, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Manali Singhal, Ms. Shreya
Singhal and Ms. Aanchal Kapoor,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 (“ Act ”), assailing the order dated 26.05.2026 (“ Impugned
Order ”) passed by the learned Family Court, South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi (“ Family Court ”) in HMA No. 1774/2023 (“ Divorce Petition ”).
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

2. By the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court dismissed the
Appellant’s application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(“ HMA ”), seeking interim custody of the minor children while they are in
London, United Kingdom, from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026 (“ Interim
Application ”).
3. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant,
submitted that the learned Family Court permitted the Respondent to act
unilaterally, without any prior discussion with or consent of the Appellant in
relation to the custody of the children during the summer vacation. It was
further submitted that the Impugned Order is contrary to the record,
inasmuch as it fails to consider the bona fides of the Appellant, who had first
informed the Respondent of his proposed trip to London with the children
for a period of 15 days; however, the Respondent, without prior intimation,
booked her summer vacation with the children for 35 days.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned
Family Court erred in failing to consider that the Appellant had altered his
itinerary to accommodate the wishes of the Respondent by proposing to
spend time with the children for only 7 days, instead of 15 days, from
28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026, while they would be in London with the
Respondent. It was further submitted that the Impugned Order has been
passed without cogent reasons and has the effect of restricting the
Appellant’s right to spend time with the children abroad during their
vacation.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the
Impugned Order does not take into consideration that the Appellant had
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

prior commitments, owing to which he had given advance intimation of his
proposed vacation plan with the children to the Respondent, whereas the
Respondent did not intimate the Appellant before planning her vacation.
6. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, prior to the
disputes between the Appellant and the Respondent, the children had resided
in London from 2015 to 2019 and, therefore, were familiar with and enjoyed
visiting London during their vacations. The Appellant and the Respondent,
along with their children, shifted to India in 2019 on account of the ill-health
of the Appellant’s father and began residing with the Appellant’s parents at
B-50, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. Since then, they are living in same house
but separately.
7. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, on account of
matrimonial discord between the Parties, several litigations, including the
Divorce Petition, have been instituted and are pending adjudication before
the learned Family Court. It was submitted that the Appellant had also filed
a Guardianship Petition seeking permanent custody of the children before
the learned Family Court; however, the said petition was dismissed by the
learned Family Court vide order dated 16.10.2025.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, as the
Appellant intended to spend quality time with the children, he planned a
vacation to London during their summer vacation from 15.06.2026 to
30.06.2026, intimated the Respondent of the same on 14.04.2026, and
requested her to provide the children’s passports for completing the requisite
formalities. It was submitted that the Respondent refused the request and
informed the Appellant that the children were already scheduled to travel to
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

London with her and would be occupied with their schedule during the
period when the Appellant would also be in London.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, left with no
effective alternative and being desirous of spending time with his children,
the Appellant altered his itinerary and enquired from the Respondent
whether the children would be available from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026 in
London. However, the Respondent did not respond to the said
communication, allegedly with the intention of keeping the Appellant away
from the children.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
Appellant was, therefore, constrained to file the Interim Application seeking
interim custody of the children from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026, during the
period when the children would be in London with the Respondent.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
Appellant, being a loving father, has always cared for his children and has
taken them on several vacations, including to Dubai, Ranthambore and Goa.
It was submitted that the Appellant is capable of taking care of the children
abroad and ought not to be deprived of his right to spend time with them
while they are in London during their summer vacation.
12. Ms. Manali Singhal, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted
that, since the Guardianship Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by
the learned Family Court vide order dated 16.10.2025, and no appeal was
preferred by the Appellant against the said order, the Interim Application
under Section 26 of the HMA was not maintainable, as the Appellant had
abandoned his plea with respect to guardianship and custody.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent
harbours a serious apprehension that the Appellant may abscond with the
minor children to an unknown location and may not return to India. It was
submitted that such apprehension is founded on recent events and the
conduct of the Appellant, including that the Appellant allegedly holds two
valid passports, has sold his entire shareholding of 51% in Asian Hotels
(North) Limited through Yans Enterprises (H.K.) Ltd. and Fineline Holdings
Ltd. to his cousin, Ms. Shreya Agarwal and others, and has received more
than ₹110 crores outside India. It was further submitted that the Appellant
has resigned as Chairman and Managing Director of Asian Hotels (North)
Limited . On behalf of the Respondent, it was submitted that the Appellant
has received the sale consideration in offshore accounts in tax havens such
as Mauritius and is, therefore, likely to settle in Mauritius along with the
children and not return to India.
14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, although the
Appellant’s family is stated to be worth more than ₹1000 crores, the
Appellant is not maintaining either the Respondent or the children, thereby
compelling the Respondent to seek financial assistance from her family for
meeting her own needs as well as those of the children.
15. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant has
no other known movable or immovable assets in India and, therefore, may
flee to another country with the children. It was submitted that this is evident
from the income affidavit filed by the Appellant, wherein he has stated that
he has “Nil” income and is entirely dependent upon his parents for survival.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

16. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent’s
parents reside in London and that both children are deeply attached to their
grandparents. It was further submitted that, since 2024, the Respondent’s
parents have been booking and bearing the cost of the tickets and expenses
for the London holidays of the Respondent and the children. It was further
submitted that the Appellant cannot be granted interim custody of the
children in London for one week without bearing the travel expenses of the
children.
17. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, upon receiving
the Appellant’s message regarding his proposed travel plan to London, the
Respondent immediately informed him of her travel plans and shared the
booking details. It was further submitted that the Respondent had also
offered that the Appellant could travel anywhere within India with the
children before their departure for London; however, the Appellant chose
not to avail of the said offer. It was also submitted that the Appellant has
never travelled alone with the minor children and that all trips undertaken by
him with the children in India were accompanied by the Appellant’s parents;
consequently, he is incapable of handling the children by himself.
18. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that it is untenable for
the Appellant, who claims to have no income, to now express willingness to
take custody of the children in London. It was further submitted that the
Appellant possesses assets across the world, which have been concealed
from this Court, and that he has not even been willing to pay the doctors’
fees for the children. Accordingly, it was submitted on behalf of the
Respondent that the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

19. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant as well as
learned Counsel for the Respondent and have perused the Impugned Order.
20. The Impugned Order records that both the Appellant and the
Respondent are residing in the same house with their two children, and that
the Respondent, along with both children, is scheduled to travel to London
for the period from 15.06.2026 to 20.07.2026. It is further recorded that the
passports of the children are in the custody of the Respondent.
21. Although the learned Family Court held that dismissal of the
Guardianship Petition and pendency of the Divorce Petition would have no
bearing on the fate of the Interim Application, the Impugned Order observes
that the learned Family Court was unable to discern any reason for the
Appellant’s insistence on seeking interim custody of the children from
28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026 in London, when he had the option of spending
more than two weeks with them in India from 27.05.2026 to 14.06.2026.
The Impugned Order further observes that the Appellant could save a
substantial amount of his parents’ money by planning holidays with the
children in India and would also get almost double the time with them than
what he sought in London.
22. In view thereof, the learned Family Court dismissed the Interim
Application and granted liberty to the Appellant to take the children for
holidays in India till 14.06.2026, after due intimation to the Respondent.
23. We are of the considered view that the reasoning adopted by the
learned Family Court, namely that the Appellant may spend time with the
children only in India and not in London, is unsupported by any material on
record. The children had resided in London from 2015 to 2019 along with
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

the Appellant and the Respondent. There is, therefore, no basis to conclude
that the Appellant may spend time with the children only in India.
24. The source from which the Appellant proposes to incur expenditure
for the vacation is also not a relevant consideration for determining interim
custody of the children. The Respondent’s submission that the Appellant is a
flight risk and may abscond with the children to a country such as Mauritius
from London is misconceived. If the Appellant intended to permanently
remove the children from India, such apprehension would equally arise even
when the children are with him during a vacation in India. Accordingly, the
submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent that the Appellant may
flee with the children from London cannot be accepted.
25. In any event, the passports of the children are in the custody of the
Respondent. It is highly unlikely that the Appellant would be able to procure
duplicate passports while the children are in London, without the knowledge
or consent of the Respondent, so as to remove the children to Mauritius. The
aforesaid apprehensions of the Respondent are speculative and without any
merit.
26. The principal objection of the Respondent is that the Appellant should
not be permitted to have custody of the children while they are in London, as
he has not borne the travel expenses. The Respondent has also submitted
that the travel expenses of the children and the Respondent have been borne
by the Respondent’s parents and, therefore, the Appellant cannot derive
benefit from the same for taking custody of the children while they are in
London.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

27. In view of the Respondent having no objection to the Appellant taking
custody of the children while in India, her contention that the Appellant is
incapable of taking care of the children alone cannot be accepted. If the
Appellant can take care of the children in India, there is no reason why he
cannot do so while in London as well.
28. We, therefore, find no justification for denying custody of the children
to the Appellant while they are in London from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026,
subject to the Appellant bearing the cost of the return air tickets purchased
by the Respondent for the children’s travel from Delhi to London and back.
No prejudice would be caused to the Appellant as in any case, the Appellant
intended to take the children with him to London and would have incurred
their travel costs. The apprehension of the Respondent that the Appellant
may abscond with the children to Mauritius can be adequately addressed by
directing that the passports of the children shall not be handed over to the
Appellant while they are in London and shall remain in the custody of the
Respondent.
29. Accordingly, the present Appeal deserves to be allowed, and the
Impugned Order is liable to be set aside. In view thereof, the following
directions are issued:
i. The Appellant shall be entitled to custody of both children in
London from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026, during the period when
the children are already scheduled to remain in London from
15.06.2026 to 20.07.2026, subject to the Appellant transferring,
on or before 25.06.2026, the entire cost of the return air tickets
purchased by the Respondent for the children’s travel from Delhi
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19

to London and back, into the bank account of the Respondent. It
is clarified that, in the event the Appellant fails to comply with
the aforesaid condition within the stipulated time, he shall not be
entitled to custody of the children for the said period.
ii. The passports of the children shall remain in the custody of the
Respondent and shall not be handed over to the Appellant.
iii. The Appellant shall not take the children outside London during
the period from 28.06.2026 to 05.07.2026.
iv. The Respondent shall hand over custody of the children to the
Appellant at 9:00 AM on 28.06.2026, at a place in London to be
decided by the Respondent and communicated to the Appellant
by 5:00 PM on 27.06.2026.
v. The Appellant shall hand over custody of the children back to the
Respondent at 5:00 PM on 05.07.2026, at a place in London to
be decided by the Respondent and communicated to the
Appellant by 5:00 PM on 04.07.2026.
30. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed, and the Impugned Order
is set aside. The Appeal, along with the pending Applications, stands
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to
costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
MADHU JAIN, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 22, 2026/ ‘gsr’
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 210/2026 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.06.2026
14:56:19