$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 169/2025 RAVI KAPOOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishvajeet Chaudhary, Mr. Shaurya Singh, Ms. Mehaak Jaggi and Ms. Kashvi Bansal, Advocates versus SHIBANI VIG .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishabh Bansal, Ms. D. Arora, Ms. Sakshi, Advs. with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 29.04.2025 CM APPL.-23964/2025 (seeking modification of the order dated 18th March 2025) 1. This application has been filed by the respondent seeking clarification of order dated 18th March 2025. 2. It is asserted by the counsel for respondent that communication exchanged between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent, gave an impression that there would be no compliance of settlement (as recorded in order dated 18th March 2025) (‘Settlement’). 3. Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate who appears on behalf of petitioner, states on instructions that there is no question of non-compliance of the Settlement. 4. The Court has perused the terms of said Settlement and does not find any ambiguity in the same, which would invite an interpetation. 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 02/05/2025 at 12:09:21 5. Accordingly, no further clarification or modification or embellishment is required regarding the Settlement. 6. More specifically, counsel for respondent asserts that petitioner has communicated to respondent via e-mail that meeting arrangements during summer vacations (stated in paragraph 8(h) of the Settlement) will not apply as regards the current summer vacations. This interpretation is completely incorrect. 7. The statement in paragraph 8(h) is quite clear and includes summer vacations for this year as well. No exception is carved out. Parties shall abide by the meeting arrangements in terms of Settlement. 8. Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate, states that as per his instructions, petitioner is not denying the benefit of summer vacations this year, as per paragraph 8(h), only a calculation of 3/4th of the vacation period needs to be made. 9. Needless to state both the petitioner and respondent have rights over their child per the Settlement and any aggressive assertion by either party will only sully the Settlement, which has been agreed to by the parties in presence of their respective counsels. The parties shall adhere to the terms of Settlement. 10. The application stands disposed of with these observations. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J APRIL 29, 2025/sm/bp 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 02/05/2025 at 12:09:21