$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010262012026 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 209/2026 & CM APPL. 38898/2026, CM APPL. 40308/2026 NEHA RELHAN .....Appellant Through: Appearance not given. versus SHRI DEEPAK RELHAN .....Respondent Through: Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, Ms. Anoushka Bajpai & Ms. Pooja, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assails the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in G.P. No.109/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/petitioner seeking implementation of the interim custody order dated 21.03.2025 was allowed. The Family Court consequently directed the SHO, P.S. North Rohini, to take custody of the minor child, Gauri Relhan, from the appellant and hand her over to the respondent. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:39:07 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the subsequent circumstances, including the child’s continued schooling, the fact that she has remained in the appellant's custody for a considerable period and the respondent’s present posting at Patratu, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the appellant's application for setting aside the ex parte order and her review application concerning the order dated 21.03.2025 are pending and, therefore, the said order ought not to have been enforced. 3. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. The order dated 21.03.2025 directing transfer of interim custody of the minor to the respondent continues to operate. It is also not in dispute that, by order dated 26.05.2026, passed in Cont. Cas.(C) No.111/2024, this Court directed that the orders passed by the Family Court, including the order dated 21.03.2025, would be immediately enforceable under the supervision of the Family Court. The said order was expressly made without prejudice to the rights of the parties to pursue their pending applications. 5. It is also imperative to note that the appellant had, on more than one occasion, given undertaking before the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings as well as before the learned Family Court to produce the minor child and hand over the custody to the respondent, however, despite such undertaking, the appellant has repeatedly failed to comply with the same and has not produced the minor child or handed over her custody as undertaken. The aforesaid conduct is also a relevant circumstance while considering the prayer for enforcement 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 17/08/2026 at 11:39:07 of the order dated 21.03.2025. 6. The challenge raised by the appellant principally concerns the correctness of the order dated 21.03.2025 and the circumstances which, according to her, justify its reconsideration. Those matters are already the subject matter of proceedings pending before the Family Court. Their pendency, by itself, cannot render the subsisting order dated 21.03.2025 incapable of enforcement, particularly after the subsequent order dated 26.05.2026. 7. The Family Court was, therefore, justified in proceeding on the basis that the order dated 21.03.2025 was presently operative and was required to be given effect to. The findings noted in the impugned order do not amount to a final determination of the parties’ respective claims to custody. The rights of the parties, including their right to pursue the pending applications and seek appropriate modification of the interim arrangement on the basis of subsequent circumstances, remain unaffected. 8. We are also conscious that in matters concerning custody of a minor, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. However, the present appeal is directed against an order implementing an existing interim custody arrangement and does not call for adjudication of the final custody rights of the parties. The appellant’s contentions regarding the child’s schooling, her existing living arrangement and the respondent’s place of posting may appropriately be considered by the Family Court in the pending proceedings, in accordance with law. 9. No jurisdictional error or perversity is made out in the 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 17/08/2026 at 11:39:07 impugned order warranting interference in an appeal at the admission stage. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 11. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the rights of either party in the pending proceedings before the Family Court, including the applications seeking recall/review or modification of the interim custody arrangement, which shall be considered independently and in accordance with law. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J AUGUST 7, 2026/ pr/kp 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 17/08/2026 at 11:39:07