Professional counseling must facilitate transitioning to unsupervised visitation in child-friendly environments for paramount child welfare.

The Petitioner (father) and Respondent (mother) married in 2020 and have a daughter, 'G', born on March 22, 2021.

The parties separated in July 2023, with the child remaining in the mother's custody.

The father initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and filed an application under Section 26 of the HMA for interim custody/visitation.

On May 2, 2024, the Family Court granted supervised visitation twice a month at the Saket Court Children’s Room and restrained the father from visiting the child’s school.

This order was set aside by the High Court in a previous petition (CM(M) 2557/2024), granting the father liberty to seek expanded reliefs.

On June 3, 2024, the Family Court passed the impugned order, which largely maintained supervised visitation at the court complex, citing the child's tender age and the risk of alienation, though it allowed the father to attend school PTMs.

The father challenged this order under Article 227, seeking unfettered/unsupervised visitation and 50% vacation time.

Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers the court to pass interim orders for the custody, maintenance, and education of minor children.

The "best interest of the child" principle as the paramount consideration, as established in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, which holds that a child has a human right to the love and affection of both parents.

The court applied the precedent from Amyra Dwivedi v. Abhinav Dwivedi, stating that visitation should occur in child-friendly environments rather than court complexes.

From Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, a child's welfare must be decided by the court based on circumstances, distinguishing it from the mere "wish" of the child.

The Court observed that while the child (now age 5) appeared comfortable with the father, she remained unwilling to leave her mother's sight during visitations.

The Court found that the existing arrangement of supervised visitation in the Saket Court Children’s Room was not conducive to fostering a healthy parent-child bond.

While acknowledging the "Tender Years Doctrine," the Court emphasized that rigid parental roles are outdated and a father is entitled to participate in the child's social and educational progress.

The Court noted that the father shares a cordial relationship with the child and there was no proven conduct rendering him unfit for unsupervised access.

However, because the child exhibited resistance to separating from the mother during visits, the Court determined that a "steady and gradual" transition was necessary.

The Court concluded that professional psychological intervention was required to assist the family in achieving unsupervised visitation, rather than relying solely on adversarial legal orders.

The Court directed: (i) the parties and the child to undergo counseling with a child psychologist at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to facilitate unsupervised visitation; (ii) the counselor to submit a report to the Family Court within four weeks; and (iii) the Family Court to pass fresh orders on unsupervised visitation based on said report.

The Court ordered that visitations be moved from the court complex to a mutually acceptable child-friendly environment (e.g., park or restaurant) near the parties' residences.

The father's right to access school records and attend PTMs was reaffirmed.