Delhi High Court: In an appeal arising from a guardianship dispute concerning the custody and welfare of a minor child, a Division Bench of Tejas Karia* and Madhu Jain, JJ., modified a Family Court order granting overnight custody of the child to the father during the summer vacation. The Court observed that the Family Court’s findings that the child had never stayed overnight with the father, that unsupervised overnight stay may not be appropriate, and that the child required further time to acclimatise before residing separately from the mother, were inconsistent with its operative direction granting overnight custody. Holding that such a direction was not warranted at the present stage, the Court substituted the overnight custody arrangement with extended daytime custody from 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on specified dates. The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and clarified that the pick-up and drop arrangements directed by the Family Court would remain unchanged.
Background
The present appeal arose from an order passed by the Family Court in a pending guardianship petition concerning the custody and welfare of a minor child. By the impugned order dated 4 June 2026, the Family Court directed the mother to incorporate the father’s name in the minor’s school records and aadhaar card, granted the father access to school-related information and parent-teacher meetings, and further awarded him interim overnight custody and visitation rights during the summer vacation.
Aggrieved thereby, the mother approached the High Court contending that although she had no objection to the father’s visitation rights, which had been continuing for the last four years, the grant of overnight custody was contrary to earlier judicial orders. It was submitted that the Family Court had previously declined the father’s prayer for interim custody and had restricted him to visitation rights, while a subsequent High Court order granting weekend custody had been stayed by the Supreme Court. The appellant further argued that no change in circumstances had been pleaded to justify the grant of overnight custody and that the father’s application before the Family Court sought only unsupervised visitation and not overnight custody. Opposing the appeal, the father contended that custody and visitation arrangements are interlocutory in nature and subject to modification in the child’s best interests. He maintained that the Supreme Court’s stay order did not prohibit the grant of overnight custody and submitted that such interaction was necessary to strengthen the bond between him and the child.
Analysis
The Court noted that the submissions advanced before it were substantially confined to the direction contained in Para 41(i) of the impugned order insofar as it permitted overnight custody of the minor child with the respondent. The Court observed that the findings recorded by the Family Court in Para 40 of the impugned order
“…that the child had never stayed overnight with the respondent, that expecting the child to stay with the respondent unsupervised may not be appropriate, and that the child may require further time to acclimatise before being expected to reside separately from the appellant had not been assailed by the respondent.”
In view of the inconsistency between the observations recorded in Para 40 and the operative directions contained in Para 41(i), the Court was of the considered opinion that the direction permitting overnight custody of the minor child did not appear to be warranted at that stage.
Decision
Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the Court modified the impugned order and directed that the respondent shall be entitled to have custody of the minor child from 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on each day from 20 June 2026 till 25 June 2026 and again on 30 June 2026 upon the child’s return from Dehradun. Clarifying that the pick-up and drop arrangements would remain unchanged, the Court allowed the appeal.
Also Read: Mother’s Custody Best for Child Under Five: Allahabad HC
Also Read: Calcutta HC mandates child access and custody guidelines
[X v. Y, MAT.APP. (F.C.) 213 of 2026, decided on 19-6-2026]
*Judgement Authored by: Justice Tejas Karia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Rajat Aneja, Abhinav Chauhan, Saubhagya Chauriha & Kaanchi Ahuja, Advocates
For the Respondents: Prashant Mendiratta & Shreya Singhal, Advocates
