In a judgment underscoring the "welfare of the child" as the supreme consideration in matrimonial disputes, the Delhi High Court has held that a parent's visitation rights can be curtailed at an interim stage if the circumstances suggest a risk to the child's sense of security, even if the allegations against that parent have not yet been conclusively proved.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal by a father who challenged the Family Court's decision to reduce his physical visitation hours.

The appellant-father argued that the Family Court's order amounted to "parental alienation." He contended that his visitation rights were restricted based on unproven allegations made by his wife—specifically, claims that he had disconnected electricity and tampered with CCTV cameras at their matrimonial home. He asserted that until these allegations were proven in a trial, his fundamental right to access his child should not be hampered.

The respondent-mother counter-argued that the child, being of school-going age, required a stable routine. She submitted that the previous visitation schedule, which involved multiple short meetings throughout the week, was disruptive, causing travel fatigue and hampering the child's academic and co-curricular activities.

The High Court upheld the Family Court's modification of the visitation schedule. The Bench laid down a critical principle regarding interim custody orders:

1. Definitive Findings Not Required for Interim Relief: The Court observed that at the stage of determining interim visitation, it is not necessary to render a final verdict on who is right or wrong regarding specific allegations (like the electricity or CCTV issues). Instead, the Court must evaluate whether the cumulative effect of the allegations and the domestic atmosphere raises concerns for the child's well-being.

"What is required is an evaluation of whether the allegations and surrounding circumstances... raise concerns that may have an adverse impact on the child's welfare."

2. Stability Over Frequency: The Court agreed with the mother’s submission that frequent, short visits involving repeated travel were contrary to the child's developmental needs. The modified schedule, which reduced the frequency of physical meetings but retained avenues for meaningful contact (likely through longer interactions or virtual means), was found to be better aligned with the child's need for routine and stability.

3. Protective Measure, Not Punishment: The Bench clarified that restricting visitation is not a punishment for the father based on unproven guilt. Rather, it is a "protective measure" to insulate the child from the friction of high-conflict litigation. The existence of an FIR (dated Jan 29, 2025) and ongoing discord was sufficient to indicate a volatile environment that the child needed shielding from.

This judgment reinforces that in custody battles, the "Best Interests of the Child" is not just a legal phrase but a practical filter. Courts will err on the side of caution to protect a child's psychological stability, even if it means temporarily restricting a parent's access while the truth of the allegations is being litigated.