JUDGMENT : CM Nos. 21248 & 21253/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. CM No. 21252/2014 1. Notice. 2. Mr. Pradeep Norula, Advocate accepts notice for the appellant. Copy of the application is received by learned Counsel for the appellant. 3. The instant application has been filed by Mr. Jorg Armin Schendel seeking a clarification of the order dated 1st November, 2014 whereby the Family Court has passed directions with regard to the interim custody of the child of the parties, namely Nandita during the winter vacations. The applicant makes a prayer for taking the child to Kerala for the period during which the child is in his custody on terms similar to those on which he was permitted to take the child to Goa by the order dated 24 May, 2014. 4. It appears that the filing of this application in these proceedings has been necessitated inasmuch as Ms. Rekha Rani, the learned Family Judge concerned was on medical leave. Several orders have been placed before lis passed by the learned Family Judge which show extensive interaction not only with the parties but the child of the parties and an insight into the relations of the parties and welfare of the child. Given the fact that the winter vacations of the child are to commence shortly as well as the fact that the Courts are going to close for the winter vacations, it is imperative that the issues raised are considered at the earliest. 5. We have made inquiries and are informed that the learned Family Judge is in Court today. It is the last day before the winter recess of the Courts and it is not possible to interact with the parties or to take considered view today. This application is really in the nature of working of the order dated 1st November, 2014. 6. We therefore, direct as follows: (i) The parties shall appear at 3:30 p.m. today before the learned Family Judge. The same be treated as an application to the Family Court. The respondent No. 2 applicant is permitted to place a photocopy of CM No. 21252/2014 before the learned Family Judge today itself. (ii) It is agreed by the appellant that the child shall also be produced today at 3:30 p.m. before the Family Judge. The same be treated as an application to the Family Court. The respondent No. 2 applicant is permitted to place a photocopy of CM No. 21252/2014 before the learned Family Judge today itself. (ii) It is agreed by the appellant that the child shall also be produced today at 3:30 p.m. before the Family Judge. (iii) Inasmuch as both parties are present and having regard to the urgency expressed by both sides, we request the Family Judge to treat the prayer for directions sought by the father, of the child for taking her outside the boundaries of NCR of Delhi during the ensuing winter vacations and to pass appropriate’ order for the working of the order dated 1 November, 2014 keeping the best interests of the child. (iv) This procedure has been necessitated in the peculiar circumstances of the case, keeping the best interest of the Child and shall not be cited as a precedent. The application is disposed of in these terms. Liberty is given to the respondent to move afresh, if necessary. CM No. 21247/2014 7. Issue notice to the respondent. Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 8. It may be noted that this application has been filed on the very last day of the Court sittings before the winter vacations. Given the insistence and urgency expressed by learned Counsel for the appellant, parties have been heard on this application which is really in the nature of reiteration of the prayer made by way of CM No. 19937/2014 whereby the appellant had sought stay of the order dated 1st November, 2014 passed by the Family Judge. 9. The order dated 1st November, 2014 has been passed by the learned Family Judge after extensively interacting with the parties and their daughter, Nandita. This order is preceded by several prior orders passed by the Family Judge some of which have been placed by the respondent father before us. Given the urgency expressed by the parties and for reasons of expediency, we extract hereunder the relevant portions of some of the orders passed: (i) The order dated 3rd March, 2014 placed (at page 196) on record is reproduced hereunder -- ‘Petitioner has filed reply to application under Sections 44 and 45 of the G & W Act along with certain documents, reply to the application for depositing Rs. 15,000/- and reply to application for extension of visitation rights along with certain documents. Talked to the parties in the Chamber for about 1½ hours. Parties have agreed that respondent pay Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner by way of cheque No. 000013, dated 3.3.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank. Respondent is aggrieved by the interim arrangements regarding visitation. He says that he is being allowed to visit the child only at the residence of the petitioner where he does not feel comfortable and cannot interact with the child properly there. He wants to take the child outside the residence of the petitioner. It is agreed between the parties that child can be taken out by respondent on alternative Sundays between 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The minor child be picked up from the residence of the mother at 11:00 a.m. and dropped at her residence at 7:00 p.m. Earlier visitation arrangement between the parties will continue to remain unaffected. Both sides have expressed apprehension that the child may not be taken by either side out of India. They say that the child has German as well as Canadian Passport. To obviate that possibility, parties are directed to deposit the passport of the child, Canadian as well as German in Court custody till further orders. It is clarified that this is only an interim arrangements qua payment of Rs. 25,000/- by respondent to petitioner and qua visitation rights of the respondent. It will not caste any reflection on merits of the case or prejudice rights of the parties on merits. Parties say that they will submit the passport tomorrow. Let the same be deposited by parties tomorrow. Ahlmad is directed to keep those passports in an envelope and to ensure that the passport are kept in his safe custody. Put up on 23.4.2014.’ (ii) Order dated 24th May, 2014: ‘xxx xxx xxx 4. I have carefully perused the available material on record and I have also heard Mr. Pradeep Narula, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate for respondent. 5. With regard to child visitation parties had agreed to two days a week and one day every alternate weekend. On 3.3.2014, interacted with the parties at length. Respondent/husband agreed to pay Rs. Pradeep Narula, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate for respondent. 5. With regard to child visitation parties had agreed to two days a week and one day every alternate weekend. On 3.3.2014, interacted with the parties at length. Respondent/husband agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance for the child and petitioner/wife agreed to let the respondent to take the child out on alternative Sundays between 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Petitioner/wife has filed an application for curtailing visitation hours in view of change of school schedule of the child and respondent/husband has filed an application for extension of visitation rights. 6. At this stage, I take up request of the respondent to take Nandita to Goa during her vacations from 22.6.2014 to 29.6.2014. Petitioner/wife has strongly objected to said pro­posal of the respondent/husband mainly on the ground that Nandita is a tender female child who has been living with her exclusively for more than a year and it will be emotionally traumatic for her to stay overnight with the respondent/husband. 7. I have carefully applied my mind to the case of both sides. It is not denied that ever since Nandita was an infant respondent/father has the experience of sole parenting her for days or even weeks when petitioner mother was away on account of her professional commitments. In para 4 of the present application respondent husband has pleaded that he has been the sole parent in charge of the child when petitioner was out of town for -- (i) five separate weeks during the spring of 2010 (Delhi); (ii) five weeks in the summer of 2010 (Toronto); (iii) two weekends in January 2011 (Toronto); (iv) five separate weeks during the summer of 2011 (Delhi); (v) one week in June 2012 (Toronto). In corresponding para 4 of her reply petitioner/wife has not denied at least six instances of his sole parenting however she has stated that respondent was sole parenting Nandita as petitioner was away “only on professional work or emergencies”. She further added that she has done much more than the respondent towards upbringing of the child. Respondent/husband has also stated that Nandita has travelled with him alone from 25.7.2011 to 2.8.2011 from Delhi to Berlin and back, December 28 to 30, December, 2011 from Berlin to Toronto which is also not denied by the petitioner wife. 8. She further added that she has done much more than the respondent towards upbringing of the child. Respondent/husband has also stated that Nandita has travelled with him alone from 25.7.2011 to 2.8.2011 from Delhi to Berlin and back, December 28 to 30, December, 2011 from Berlin to Toronto which is also not denied by the petitioner wife. 8. It is common sight that in a nuclear family, where both the spouses are working one parent has the sole responsibility of parenting the child when the other spouse is away due to work or any other emergency. In para 4 page 4 of her reply petitioner/wife herself has stated: ‘that the contents of paragraph four indicates that unlike the petitioner, respondent can only quote six instances of sole parenting in 6 years. In Toronto both the respondent and the petitioner were professionals with jobs that had travel requirements and both of them would take charge of the child when the other was away as all married couples do as a matter of course.’ 9. No serious complaint or grievance is expressed by petitioner mother to respondent father taking Nandita to Goa except that since their separation for last about one year Nandita is in her exclusive custody and she is used to it and that Nandita will not be able to stay overnight with her father. It is not her case that Nandita is not comfortable with her father or Nandita is not willing to go with him to Goa. I have had prolonged interaction with the parties with a view to find an amicable settlement for sharing vacations of Nandita equitably but it did not work. I interacted with Nandita in the chamber exclusively and also in presence of her father and observed that Nandita is quite comfortable with her father and is willing to go out with him is not even questioned by her mother. Her only concern is that Nandita being a tender female child cannot stay overnight with the respondent. Vitriol, acrimony and hostility has rocked his marriage for the past about one year. However before the parties separated respondent/husband had admittedly travelled with Nandita alone. He had sole parented her when her mother was away on account of her professional commitments. This Court has already allowed petitioner mother to take Nandita to Shimla vide order dated 15.5.2014. Vitriol, acrimony and hostility has rocked his marriage for the past about one year. However before the parties separated respondent/husband had admittedly travelled with Nandita alone. He had sole parented her when her mother was away on account of her professional commitments. This Court has already allowed petitioner mother to take Nandita to Shimla vide order dated 15.5.2014. Equity demands that father too should be allowed to take Nandita to Goa in view of the fact that father admittedly had sole parented the child in absence of the mother on various occasions and travelled with her alone also and it is not in dispute that the child is comfortable with her father and further in view of the fact that there is not even a whisper on the reply of the mother that father ever did anything during any of the admitted 5-6 occasions of his sole parenting which was detrimental to or incompatible with the welfare of Nandita being a female child. 10. Learned Counsel for petitioner, during the course of arguments, contended that Nandita is a tender female child. Let her grow and be able to look after herself and then she can be allowed to stay overnight with the respondent. Learned Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, argued that if respondent was able to take care of the child when she was an infant how can it be said that he has now become unable to look after the child when the child is only 5 plus. It is contended by him that father should be allowed to spend more quality, time with the child to enable father and daughter to have healthy emotional bonding. I see substance in his contention. Respondent father sole parented Nandita as an infant on various occasions. Nandita is still an innocent tender child. I see no reason why father daughter cannot be allowed to stay together in view of the fact that Nandita is comfortable with her father and is inclined to go out with her father to Goa. 11. Learned Counsel for petitioner expressed an apprehension that respondent being a German citizen and having his own passport in his possession can take Nandita out of India and in that even bringing the child back to India will be an uphill task. 11. Learned Counsel for petitioner expressed an apprehension that respondent being a German citizen and having his own passport in his possession can take Nandita out of India and in that even bringing the child back to India will be an uphill task. Apprehension of learned Counsel for petitioner is misplaced as this Court has already taken custody of Canadian as well as German Passport of Nandita and during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for respondent had submitted that only school identity card of Nandita is enough for enabling her to travel by air and her passport is not needed. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion I think that Nandita should be allowed to bloom having healthy emotional bonding with both parents irrespective of their mutual acrimonious relations. She should enjoy the beauty of hills and mountains with the mother and beauty of beaches with the father. Accordingly prayer of respondent to take Nandita to Goa is allowed for the period from 22.6.2014 to 26.6.2014 only. Respondent/husband is directed to mention the itinerary, places of stay at Goa, mobile phone numbers which he will be using at Goa. Petitioner/wife is directed to give school identity card of Nandita to respondent/husband within two days. Petitioner mother can talk to Nandita everyday morning and evening on the mobile phone. Nandita can talk to her mother any time she wants. Respondent husband will inform the petitioner on his arrival back to Delhi within two hours of his arrival and the Court on the next day. 13. To assuage the apprehension of the petitioner/wife that respondent may not flee out of India, which apprehension is alleged by the respondent/husband to be absolutely unfounded, I asked the respondent if he could deposit his passport with the Court. He stated that same is not possible as he being not an Indian citizen is required to travel with his passport. Having applied my mind carefully to case of both sides, I direct respondent/husband to deposit his passport with the Court one day prior to his departure to Goa. The passport will be returned to him on his arrival with the child to Delhi on the next working day. The respondent-husband may obtain certified copy of his passport from the Court. Having applied my mind carefully to case of both sides, I direct respondent/husband to deposit his passport with the Court one day prior to his departure to Goa. The passport will be returned to him on his arrival with the child to Delhi on the next working day. The respondent-husband may obtain certified copy of his passport from the Court. His photograph in the certified copy of passport may not be visible so he is directed to leave his passport size photograph which will be affixed to the certified copy of the passport and attested by the Court with its seal. To ensure smooth and trouble-fee passage of respondent to and fro goa and his stay there any Indian authority, who may require his passport for any purpose during his visit to Goa w.e.f. 2.6.2014 to 26.6.2014 is directed to refer to certified copy of passport of respondent and not to insist on production of original passport (the same being in custody of this Court). It is directed that respondent will not be subjected to any harassment by any authority in India on account of non-availability of his original passport with him during the said period. Petitioner to collect the child from residence of the petitioner five hours prior to departure of the flight to Goa and will drop the child at residence of petitioner within three hours of arrival at the Delhi airport. 14. Before parting with the order I may mention that I will take up application of petitioner wife for curtailment of visitation hours and application of respondent/husband for enhancement of visitation on reopening of the school of Nandita when fresh school schedule is available. I may make it clear here that this order shall not caste any reflection on the merits of the application of petitioner/wife for seeking custody of the child under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act as this order is only with regard to sharing of the vacations of Nandita equitably by her parents.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It appears that the above order dated 24th May, 2014 with regard to the custody was complied with by both the parties. 11. So far as the order impugned dated 1st November, 2014 in the present appeal is concerned, the learned Family Judge has inter alia noted thus: “1. It appears that the above order dated 24th May, 2014 with regard to the custody was complied with by both the parties. 11. So far as the order impugned dated 1st November, 2014 in the present appeal is concerned, the learned Family Judge has inter alia noted thus: “1. This order shall dispose of an application of the petitioner/wife under Section 38 of Special Marriage Act for custody of the child namely Nandita; her connected application under Section 151, CPC for modification of order dated 3.3.2014 and application of the respondent/husband for extension of visitation rights. 2. Parties have filed reply to application of the other side whereby case of the other side is strongly opposed. 3. I have carefully perused the material, available on record, I have also heard Mr. Pradeep Narula, Adv. for petitioner and Mr. A.S. Rastogi, Adv. for respondent. 4. Petitioner/wife has sought custody of Baby Nandita saying that she has been solely responsible for upbringing of the child physically and financially w.e.f. 29.6.2012. She has fixed place of residence and does not have any information about where exactly the respondent lives. She has an apprehension that respondent may take away the child to Germany as the child also holds German passport. 5. She has further filed an application under Section 151, CPC seeking modification of order dated 3.3.2014. On 3.3.2014, when I talked to the parties in the chamber for about 1½ hours parties agreed that respondent would pay Rs. 25,000/- per month for maintenance of minor daughter. It was further agreed between the parties that child can be taken out by the respondent on alternate Sundays between 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Earlier visitation arrangement between the parties remained unaffected. To alleviate the apprehension of petitioner/wife that the child may not be taken out of India, parties were directed to deposit the passport of the child Canadian as well as German in the Court. 6. To alleviate the apprehension of petitioner/wife that the child may not be taken out of India, parties were directed to deposit the passport of the child Canadian as well as German in the Court. 6. Petitioner/wife has filed an application under Section 151, CPC for modification of the said order on ground that timings of the school of the child have changed w.e.f. 1.4.2014 according to which the child is required to attend school from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. It is stated that now she comes back by 3:00 p.m. Respondent is visiting the child from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Friday one week and then on Tuesday and on Sunday the next week. It is stated that if visitation of the respondent begins at 4:00 p.m. the child would be tired and exhausted. It is prayed that visitation may take place from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on week days and from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on alternate Sundays. 7. The respondent-husband has, vehemerstly, contested the two applications. He has also filed an application for extension for visitiation rights pleading therein following facts: 8. The respondent has always discharged his duties towards the family and has sacrificed everything else be it his professional commitments, personal convenience, social life, personal needs. The petitioner herself has admitted in her petition that respondent is “very possessive about Nandita. He is consistently kind and nurturing and wants the family to stay, together at all costs.” He is extremely concerned about his daughter. He has exceptionally close and affectionate relationship with her. Since her birth, he has always remained close to her whether it was in Toronto or in Delhi or in Shimla and as they are back in Delhi he has hired an apartment G-103, Naraina Vihar, Second Floor which is at stone throw of the house of the petitioner (D-57, Naraina Vihar). The sole objective of his staying in India and taking an apartment near petitioner’s residence has been to remain close to the minor child. Nandita also cherishes his company more than anything else. The petitioner is obstructing the respondent from having stable, continuous and quality interaction with Nandita. Nandita pleads with her father to stay longer and to take her out. Prolonged and quality, interaction of the father with Nandita is required for her well-being and overall growth. Nandita also cherishes his company more than anything else. The petitioner is obstructing the respondent from having stable, continuous and quality interaction with Nandita. Nandita pleads with her father to stay longer and to take her out. Prolonged and quality, interaction of the father with Nandita is required for her well-being and overall growth. Respondent being loving, caring, highly educated and responsible father is playing a crucial role in intellectual, emotional and physical development of his daughter. It is also pleaded that having sacrificed his professional commitments, he is working from home and is available for care and upbringing of the child whereas petitioner being busy with her profession is not available for care and support of the child during day time. It is also pleaded that he has hired a spacious apartment whereas petitioner is living in a small and unhygienic accommodation. 9. Petitioner/wife has challenged the claim of the respondent saying that respondent did not share family expenses equitably despite he being a corporate lawyer earning much more than the petitioner and from 2012 she has been solely and exclusively responsible for child’s maintenance. Regarding respondent taking accommodation near to her residence, it is stated that respondent has persistently followed her from Delhi to Shimla, from Shimla to Delhi which tantamount to stalking. It is also stated that the child is feeling disturbed because the marriage is over and the parents do not live together. It is also pleaded that respondent is living as a single foreigner and accordingly petitioner has reasonable apprehension about the welfare of the child in the hands of the respondent. 10. At the very outset. I may state that I have discussed the rival claims of the parties in my order dated 24.5.2014 while adjudicating upon application of the respondent for permission to take the child to Goa for her summer vacations. The same are not reproduced here to avoid repetition. 11. It is not in dispute that both petitioner and respondent are loving affectionate and caring parents. However, unfortunately, Nandita is a victim of ugly and bitter marital discord and acrimony between her parents.” 12. The learned Family Judge has thereafter placed reliance on judicial pronouncements which are placed hereunder: “12. The same are not reproduced here to avoid repetition. 11. It is not in dispute that both petitioner and respondent are loving affectionate and caring parents. However, unfortunately, Nandita is a victim of ugly and bitter marital discord and acrimony between her parents.” 12. The learned Family Judge has thereafter placed reliance on judicial pronouncements which are placed hereunder: “12. In Indira Khurana v. Pram Prakash, Civil Revision Appeal No. 652 of 1995, decided on 1.10.1995 Hon’ble Court expressed its anguish over the estranged and warring spouses obstructing free interaction of the other side with the child which is essential for overall development of the child. It was observed -- ‘The parents instead of letting the children decide for themselves or to have a free flow interaction with both parents are often found to be luring the child away from the other forgetting that for proper development of a child, the love, affection, companionship, guid­ance of both parents is essential. They forget that their roles as spouses and as parents are entirely different. They allow the same to merge and which can only be to the detriment of the child. I have expressed my thoughts and anguish in the hope that the parents at least in the present would in the future attempt to keep their acrimony as far away as possible from the child. In the present case, both parents are well educated and belong to a responsible strata of society. Their focus should be to maintain a peaceful environment for the child in both homes, so as to allow full cognitive development of the child and to have a positive impact on the mental health of the child. That is the need of the hour.’ 13. It is well settled that question of custody or visitation of the child is to be considered only from the point of view of welfare and interest of the minor. In MC Grath, Re: (1893) 1 Ch 143 : 62 LJ Ch 208, Lindley, L.J. observed -- ‘The dominant matter for the consideration of the Court is the welfare of the child. But the welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only, nor by physical comfort only. The word ‘welfare’ must be taken in its widest sense. The moral or religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its physical well-being. But the welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only, nor by physical comfort only. The word ‘welfare’ must be taken in its widest sense. The moral or religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its physical well-being. Nor can the ties of affection be disregarded.’ 14. In Thirty Hoshie Dolikuka V, MANU/SC/0149/1982 : Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka [1982] ISR 49, Apex Court held as under -- ‘The principles of law in relation to the custody of minor appear to be well established. It is well settled that any matter concerning a minor, has to be considered and decided only from the point of view of the welfare and interest of the minor. In dealing with a matter concerning a minor, the Court has a special responsibility and it is the duty of the Court to consider the welfare of the minor and to protect the minor’s interest. In considering the question of custody of a minor, the Court has to be guided by the only consideration of the welfare of the minor.’ 15. In the case of Nil Ratan & ANR. v. Abhijit Kundu, Civil Appeal 4960 of 2008 arising: out of SLP (Civil) No. 1243 of 2008 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down following principles governing custody of the minor children -- ‘In deciding a difficulty and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights, flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence of procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the, paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parents patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parents patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. It the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should be rest with the Court as to what is conductive to the welfare of the minor.’ 16. In Ram Murthi Chopra & Another v. Nagesh Tyagi, CM (M) 752/2000 decided on 25.9.2008 it was observed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court: ‘Every Court while deciding the custody matters has to consider the welfare of the child as a prime factor. While consideration the welfare of the child, the Court has to give due weightage to all the circumstances such as the child’s ordinary’ comfort and contentment, his health, education, general maintenance, etc. Apart from that, the Court has also to give due weightage to the emotional consideration’.” 13. In paras 17 and 18, the learned Judge has noted the settled position in law that where the child is able to express the intelligent preference for a parent, the same needs to be given due weightage even though the final decision would rest on the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the child. Thereafter, it was observed and held thus: “18. I interacted with Baby Nandita in the chamber alone as well as in presence of her father and mother. Nandita was very comfortable and happy with both her parents. She is just 5 years old and is not old enough to form any intelligent preference or judgment. xxx xxx xxx 24. Although legally petitioner, being mother of tender aged female child, is legally entitled to custody of the child yet at the same time the child cannot be deprived of love and affection of her natural father who too has a right to help in child’s upbringing. During my interaction with Baby Nandita, I found her as happy and comfortable with her father as she was with her mother. During my interaction with Baby Nandita, I found her as happy and comfortable with her father as she was with her mother. Hence for reasons recorded in my order dated 24.5.2014 and in this order petitioner/wife is held entitled to custody of Baby Nandita during pendency of this petition and respondent is held entitled to custody of the child from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on IInd and IV Sundays. He can pick up the child from residence of her mother at 10:00 a.m. and drop her there at 7:00 p.m. He is also held entitled to custody of the child on any one gazette/school holiday in a month besides two Sunday i.e. IInd and IVth for the same duration as stated above. Further, he can have custody of the child from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on every Tuesday and Thursday. Parties shall share long vacations of the child such as winter and summer equally. Respondent shall also have custody of child on Christian festivals such as Chirstmas from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Parties cannot take the child out of NCR without permission of the Court. 25. With these directions, the applications of the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband are disposed of.” 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted, before us that there would be no objection to the child travelling to Kerala if the appellant is permitted to travel with the child and her father. This submission by itself would show that the applicant has no real misgiving about the ability of the respondent to ensure the welfare, well-being and safety of the daughter while she is in his custody. 15. We have extracted the orders for the reason of expediency. We are yet to hear the Counsel for the respondent, meet the child and thereafter take a view on the modification. This order is not a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 16. In view of the submissions made, the extensive interactions by the learned Family Judge with the parties and their daughter as well and the deep consideration of the welfare of the child, we are not inclined to interdict the orders which have been passed at this stage. 16. In view of the submissions made, the extensive interactions by the learned Family Judge with the parties and their daughter as well and the deep consideration of the welfare of the child, we are not inclined to interdict the orders which have been passed at this stage. We may note that though the order was passed by the learned Family Court on 1st November, 2014, the instant appeal was filed only on 1st December, 2014 and for the first time was listed before us on 5th December, 2014. We are compelled to observe that an effort is being made to frustrate meetings between the father and the daughter by bringing the matter at the last stage before the Courts and creating a sense of urgency. 17. So far as the prayer for taking the child out of Delhi is concerned, we have directed the parties to approach the Family Judge for appropriate orders in this regard, as the learned Judge is best placed to assess the facts at this stage. 18. It may be noted that the learned Family Judge has dealt with the matter with extreme sincerity and has applied careful mind to the matter including the matter of visitation and interim custody which has been granted to the respondent. Nothing has been pointed out as of now which would persuade us to interdict the visitation of the child with her father. Nothing has been placed to show that the custody of the child in any manner be detrimental to the welfare of the child. 19. For all these reasons, we reject the prayer for interim order at this stage. CM No. 21249/2014 20. Notice. 21. Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. 22. In the meantime, the appellant shall stand waived from serving the advance copy of the present appeal on the respondent No. 1-State and of any application which the party seeks to move in future. The application is disposed of. Dasti under signature of Court Master to parties. Application disposed of.