Facts
The petitioner (father), an Army personnel, filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent (mother) willfully violated visitation orders passed by the Division Bench on 18.02.2025 and subsequent directions by the Single Judge on 12.11.2025 and 20.02.2026
Source reference: p. 1-2Despite judicial interactions confirming the children were comfortable with the father, the respondent repeatedly obstructed unsupervised visitation, citing medical concerns for the younger son
Source reference: para. 7, p. 1; para. 3, p. 2The Court later directed visitation at the Delhi High Court Medication and Conciliation Centre (DHCMCC) on 08.05.2026. The respondent moved for modification, which was dismissed, yet she failed to produce the children at the DHCMCC, later citing a routine dermatological appointment as an excuse for non-compliance
Source reference: p. 3, 4, 5; para. 5-6, p. 5Issues
1. Whether the respondent’s repeated failure to facilitate visitation in terms of the court’s directions amounts to "civil contempt" under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Source reference: p. 7, para. 92. Whether the medical reasons provided by the respondent for non-compliance on 08.05.2026 constituted a valid emergent circumstance
Source reference: p. 7, para. 7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines "civil contempt" as the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court
Source reference: p. 7, para. 9Section 12 of the same Act regarding the punishment for contempt
Source reference: p. 7, para. 9The Court relied on the principle that visitation rights are governed by the "best interests of the child" doctrine, and once a schedule is judicially mandated, any unauthorized deviation without emergent justification constitutes a breach of the rule of law
Source reference: p. 2, para. 6; p. 4, para. 5Reasoning
The Court observed a "disconcerting pattern of non-adherence" by the respondent despite multiple opportunities and warnings
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The Court rejected the respondent's medical excuse for missing the 08.05.2026 visitation, noting that the medical prescription revealed a "routine" dermatological issue with five previous visits, rather than an "emergent circumstance"
Source reference: p. 7, para. 7The Court noted the respondent’s bad faith in failing to inform the DHCMCC or the petitioner of her intended absence, especially after her modification application was dismissed just a day prior. The Court concluded that the respondent’s conduct displayed "utter and willful disobedience," as she prioritized tactical obstruction over judicial mandates
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5; p. 7, para. 8, 9Holding
The Court held the respondent guilty of contempt under Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
The matter was listed for arguments on sentencing for 18.05.2026. However, the Court provided the respondent a final opportunity to "purge her conduct" by directing a compensatory visitation on 16.05.2026 at the DHCMCC under the same terms previously ordered
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10, 11Original Court PDF
Hitendra SinghvsAbhilasha Singh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in