The Court also found it significant that the Family Court had not passed the impugned order mechanically. (AI image)The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order granting a father sixteen days’ summer vacation custody of his minor daughter, holding that allegations of violation of earlier custody directions must be examined in the pending contempt proceedings and cannot be used to assail a separate custody order. The Court also cautioned that repeatedly approaching courts immediately before school vacations to stall custody arrangements may ultimately harm the child’s welfare and relationship with both parents.BackgroundThe Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a mother challenging a Family Court order granting the father exclusive custody of their 11-year-old daughter for sixteen continuous days during the 2026 summer vacation.A Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain held that the issues raised by the mother regarding the father’s alleged violation of earlier court directions are already the subject matter of pending contempt proceedings and cannot be simultaneously agitated in an appeal arising from a custody order.The custody dispute has been pending since 2018, when the father instituted guardianship proceedings seeking permanent custody of the minor child. In April 2019, the Family Court granted him interim custody and expanded visitation rights. The order was subsequently stayed by the Delhi High Court in an appeal preferred by the mother.The parties have since been engaged in multiple proceedings concerning custody, visitation and alleged non-compliance with court directions. During the 2025 winter vacation, the Family Court granted the father seven days’ custody of the child subject to certain safeguards. Following the custody period, the mother approached the High Court alleging that the father had violated several conditions imposed by the Family Court. The father, on the other hand, initiated separate contempt proceedings alleging that the mother had repeatedly failed to comply with visitation orders.In March 2026, the High Court directed that the father’s visitation rights would be exercised through supervised Saturday meetings before a Child Counsellor at the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. That arrangement continued under subsequent orders passed in April and May 2026.While continuing the supervised visitation regime, the High Court, by an order dated 25.05.2026, directed the Family Court to independently consider the father’s application seeking custody during the summer vacation. Pursuant to that direction, the Family Court interacted with the child in chambers on 01.06.2026 and, by its order dated 03.06.2026, granted the father exclusive custody of the child from 15 June to 30 June 2026 along with five compensatory custody days.Aggrieved by that order, the mother approached the Delhi High Court.Before the High Court, the mother argued that the Family Court had ignored the subsisting directions passed by the High Court requiring the father’s interaction with the child to remain confined to supervised Saturday sessions before the Child Counsellor.It was submitted that despite three consecutive orders directing supervised visitation, the Family Court granted the father unrestricted custody for sixteen days without considering the existing arrangement.The mother further argued that the child, who is now eleven years old, had consistently expressed her unwillingness to stay overnight with the father, particularly after her experience during the winter vacation in January 2026.She also argued that the Family Court had failed to examine her specific allegations that the father had violated the safeguards imposed while granting winter vacation custody, including allegations relating to the child’s travel and the presence of unauthorised persons during the custody period.The father opposed the appeal, submitting that the Family Court had passed the order only after interacting with the child in chambers. It was further argued that the mother had repeatedly approached the High Court immediately before vacation periods to delay or prevent implementation of custody orders. According to the father, the mother had refused to hand over the child even after the Family Court directed that custody be given on 15.06.2026.The High Court found that the mother’s challenge was founded almost entirely on allegations that the father had violated the conditions governing the winter vacation custody granted in January 2026.The Bench noted that those very allegations already form the subject matter of pending contempt proceedings before the High Court. In such circumstances, the same grievances could not be permitted to be raised simultaneously in an appeal challenging a subsequent custody order.“The Appellant cannot be permitted to agitate identical grievances simultaneously through this Appeal while the contempt proceedings are sub judice,” the Court observed.The Bench held that the violations of earlier judicial directions are matters to be examined by the Contempt Court and cannot constitute a ground to interfere with an independent custody order passed by the Family Court.The Court also found it significant that the Family Court had not passed the impugned order mechanically. Before granting summer vacation custody, it had interacted with the minor child in chambers on 01.06.2026 and thereafter exercised its discretion while deciding the father’s application.Another circumstance that weighed with the Bench was that the High Court itself, while dealing with the pending contempt petitions on 25.05.2026, had specifically directed the Family Court to consider the father’s application for summer vacation custody on its own merits.“More significantly, this Court vide order dated 25.05.2026 itself restored jurisdiction to the learned Family Court to decide the summer custody application,” the Bench observed.The Court, therefore, held that there was no justification to fault the Family Court for deciding the custody application pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court itself.Child’s Welfare Must Remain The Paramount ConsiderationEmphasising that custody disputes must ultimately be decided keeping in view the welfare of the child, the Bench observed that prolonged litigation and repeated attempts to stall visitation arrangements are themselves capable of causing prejudice to the child.The Court cautioned that delays in implementing custody orders may adversely affect the child’s relationship with both parents.“The minor child has a right to meaningful time with both her parents,” the Bench observed.It further remarked that a consistent practice of approaching courts immediately before vacation periods to obstruct custody arrangements cannot be encouraged.“A consistent pattern of approaching Courts on the eve of vacation periods to stall the handover of the child, if countenanced, would be detrimental to the child’s welfare and her relationship with both parents,” the Court said.The Bench clarified that all allegations relating to the father’s conduct during the earlier custody period, including the alleged breach of judicial directions, remain open for consideration in the pending contempt proceedings, where the mother would be at liberty to press all her contentions.Finding no substantial ground to interfere with the Family Court’s order granting the father sixteen days’ summer vacation custody, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal. It clarified that the mother’s grievances regarding the father’s alleged non-compliance with earlier court directions would be adjudicated independently in the pending contempt petitions and disposed of the appeal without any order as to costs.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)