$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 190/2025, CM APPL. 31305/2025 and CM APPL. 67419/2025 KANIKA SAHNI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mr. Pankaj Seth, Mr. Jagjit Singh Sahni and Ms. Shruti Jain, Advs. along with Petitioner in Person. versus KUNAL THUKRAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Sakshi Mehley, Mr. Sajal Manchanda and Mr. Varun Garg, Advs. along with Respondent in Person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 04.11.2025 1. The Appellant-Mother [Respondent before the Family Court] assails the correctness of orders dated 13.05.2025 and 19.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court-02, Shahdra District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [herein after referred to as „Impugned Orders‟], in G.P. No. 01/2025 titled as Kunal Thukral v. Kanika Sahni, whereby the learned Family court granted the custody of their child to the Respondent-Father [Petitioner before the Family Court] and the Appellant was granted visitation on every Monday from 2pm - 5pm. 2. It is evident from the reading of the Impugned Orders, that for default in producing the child, who is nearly three years old, the Court This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:07:53 directed the Appellant to hand over the custody of the child to the Respondent. It is pertinent to note that main petition is for access and visitation and not for custody. Furthermore, there was no prayer or application by the Respondent with regards to seeking the grant of custody of the child. 3. It becomes evident from the record that the Court as a punitive measure for failure to comply with the directions to the Court to produce the child, has directed the Appellant to hand his custody to the Respondent. 4. In our opinion such directions were neither called for nor prayed by the Appellant. The child was less than three years old when the Impugned Orders were passed. Hence the same is set aside. 5. This Court has also examined various reports submitted by the Counselor, which are directed to be transmitted to the Family Court. 6. The Appellant is requested not to interfere with the visitation rights which were granted by the order dated 21.05.2025 read with order dated 22.05.2025, which shall continue to operate till the application is decided afresh by the Family Court. 7. However, the order passed on 19.05.2025, directing the Appellant to hand over the custody of three years old child is set aside, while requesting the Family Court to decide afresh the application, for grant of visitation to the Respondent expeditiously. 8. List before the Family Court on 11.11.2025. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. NOVEMBER 04, 2025/sh/dev/ad This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:07:53