The short issue which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the Family Court committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in modifying the interim visitation arrangement, by reducing the extent and frequency of visitation, in exercise of its discretionary powers, keeping in view the welfare of the minor daughter as the paramount consideration?

A 2-Judges Bench of the Delhi High Court held –

“11. … It is well settled that, in matters concerning custody and visitation, the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, overriding all other considerations, including the convenience or preference of either parent. The Court must ensure that the child’s physical safety, emotional well-being, and opportunities for healthy development are safeguarded, while promoting meaningful contact with both parents wherever possible. Any modification of visitation rights must, therefore, be guided by evidence demonstrating a clear need for change in order to protect the child’s welfare, rather than on speculative or minor disputes between the parents.”.

The Bench further held –

“15. … It is well settled that the power to modify visitation arrangements is not to be exercised merely on considerations of convenience or routine parental disagreement, but only where circumstances are demonstrated to have a material impact on the welfare of the child.

16. In assessing the competing contentions, this Court recognizes that while a parent is entitled to regular and meaningful visitation, such interaction must not expose the child to circumstances likely to cause physical harm, emotional distress, or psychological instability.”.

The Bench also noted that approximately twenty litigations were pending between the parties and their respective family members –

“19. …reflecting the acrimonious nature of their relationship. Such multiplicity of proceedings demonstrates that the marital discord has translated into prolonged adversarial litigation. While each party asserts its legal rights, this Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that sustained inter se conflict between parents has a direct bearing on the emotional and psychological well-being of a minor child, particularly one of tender age. During the formative years, a child requires stability, emotional security, and an environment insulated, as far as possible, from parental discord. The Courts exercising jurisdiction in custody and visitation matters are therefore duty-bound to ensure that the child does not become a casualty of ongoing disputes between the parents.”.

The Bench found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the Family Court and dismissed the appellant father’s appeal holding –

“20. …It is well settled that an appellate court ought not to substitute its own view for that of the court of first instance in matters of discretionary interim arrangements, unless the decision is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or contrary to the welfare of the child, which is not the case herein. Moreover, only interim arrangement for visitation has been made which is open to modification, change and, increased if circumstances permit.”.