Parents must cooperate in joint visitation activities to foster children’s bond with their father.

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Family Court’s order dated 6 June 2026 in GP 18/2020, which granted him visitation with his twin children during the summer vacations for three days, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at the Children’s Room, Family Court, Saket.

The petitioner alleged that the visits were of brief duration and were not conducted properly.

By the time of hearing, the summer vacations had ended, and the petitioner and his father were receiving visitation once a month, on every third Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

The petitioner sought unsupervised visitation, contending that the respondent-mother’s presence prevented the children from freely interacting with him.

The respondent stated that the children, having lived with her since childhood, followed her whenever she attempted to leave the Children’s Room.

The visitation scheduled for 15 August 2026 could not take place because that day was a national holiday.

Whether the respondent had willfully disobeyed the Family Court’s order dated 6 June 2026 concerning the petitioner’s visitation rights.

Whether directions were necessary to facilitate meaningful interaction and bonding between the petitioner and the minor children during the existing visitation arrangement.

Whether the missed visitation scheduled for 15 August 2026 should be rescheduled and supervised in accordance with the existing Family Court arrangements.

The Court proceeded on the principle that visitation arrangements must be implemented in a manner that promotes the welfare of minor children and facilitates the development of a meaningful bond with the non-custodial parent.

It further applied the principle that parties must cooperate, maintain decorum and civilized behaviour, and refrain from making personal remarks in the presence of children while exercising visitation rights.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order; the directions were issued in the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the alleged non-compliance with the Family Court’s visitation order and to ensure effective implementation of the visitation arrangement.

The Court noted that the summer vacations had already concluded, making the petitioner’s complaint regarding the earlier vacation visitation incapable of providing substantive relief at that stage.

It also considered the parties’ submissions regarding the respondent-mother’s presence and the children’s dependence on her.

Rather than immediately granting unsupervised visitation, the Court directed both parents to participate in group activities, including board games and other games, so that the children could gradually develop comfort with the petitioner.

The petitioner was permitted to show the children photographs of his family and to take photographs with them if they were comfortable, thereby facilitating familiarity and bonding.

To preserve the children’s welfare and prevent parental conflict, both parties were directed to cooperate and maintain civilized conduct during visitation.

Since the 15 August visitation was missed due to a national holiday, the Court ordered its substitution on 22 August 2026, with the presence of the Child Counsellor as required by the Family Court’s earlier orders.

The petitioner and respondent were directed to engage jointly in activities with the children, maintain decorum, and facilitate the petitioner’s bonding with them.

The respondent was directed to bring the children to the Children’s Room, Family Court, Saket, on 22 August 2026 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in lieu of the missed visitation on 15 August 2026.

The Family Court was directed to ensure the presence of the Child Counsellor, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Children’s Room.