Supervised visitation and counsellor oversight mandated to ensure compliance with court-ordered parental access.

The Petitioner (mother) filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience by the Respondent (father) of visitation orders dated 22.03.2022, 19.10.2022, and 05.11.2022

The original orders, passed in a guardianship petition (GP No. 108/2021), granted the Petitioner interim custody of their minor son on the first and third Saturdays of every month at the Children Room, Tis Hazari Courts

Procedural records indicated a consistent pattern of non-compliance; a report from the In-charge of the Children Room revealed that out of 15 scheduled meetings, the Respondent produced the child only five times, either arriving several hours late or failing to appear entirely for the remaining sessions

On 21.12.2022, the Court recorded a prima facie finding that the Respondent was guilty of contempt

Despite subsequent directions on 25.07.2023, the Petitioner submitted that visitation occurred only thrice in the three months preceding the current hearing

1. Whether the Respondent’s repeated failure to produce the minor child for scheduled visitation constitutes willful disobedience of the court’s directions

2. Whether the existing visitation arrangement requires modification to ensure the child’s welfare and the enforcement of the non-custodian parent’s rights

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to enforce compliance with interim custody orders.

It applied the principle that a custodian parent has a legal and moral duty to ensure the child receives the love and affection of the non-custodian parent, which is essential for the child's development

Furthermore, the Court utilized its inherent power to refer parties to mediation and appoint specialized child counselors to facilitate visitation in high-conflict matrimonial disputes

The Court analyzed the Respondent’s conduct through attendance reports and call logs, concluding that his behavior demonstrated a lack of respect for the law

It rejected the Respondent’s defense that the child was "reluctant" to meet the mother, noting that no plausible reason was provided for missing court-ordered timings

The Court observed that despite a prima facie contempt finding and clear warnings, the Respondent continued to obstruct visitation

To resolve the impasse, the Court determined that the environment at the Tis Hazari Children Room was no longer effective.

Consequently, it shifted the venue to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (DHCMCC) and mandated the presence of a child counselor to provide a neutral, professional environment that prioritizes the child's psychological comfort over the parents' legal friction

(ii) The Respondent is prohibited from being present during the interaction

(iii) The Respondent must facilitate video calls every Tuesday and Sunday at 04:30 PM

Both parties are referred to mediation under the DHCMCC to resolve underlying disputes, though the visitation arrangement remains non-negotiable during this period

The matter is scheduled for further proceedings on 06.07.2026