$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010360962026 + CM(M) 1750/2026, CM APPL. 51935/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 51936/2026 (Ex. From filing the typed and certified copies of annexures) VARUN ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Ms. Manvi Rajvanshy & Mr. Rohan Gupta, Advs. with Petitioner in person. versus SHRUTI ARORA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Sudershani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.07.2026 [“Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The challenge to the Impugned Order is limited to the extent of the direction for the minor child to be brought before the Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the said direction has been passed without taking into consideration various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it does not keep the wellbeing of the minor child in mind. 3. He submits that various interactions have been held with the Pyschologist and relied upon the recommendations which have been 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 10/08/2026 at 12:23:11 made and are as follows: “Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the observations across multiple visitation sessions, it is evident that the minor child, Yuvaan, is experiencing emotional stress arising from prolonged parental conflict and ongoing litigation. While the child has repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to engage positively and comfortably with the father in a supportive and play-based environment, his increasing reluctance and guarded behaviour over time appear to be influenced by factors external to the visitation setting. The observed pattern indicates the presence of possible parental alienation dynamics, wherein the child appears to be under the direct or indirect influence of the Petitioner(Mother), resulting in an emotional distancing from the father. This is reflected in the child’s selective withdrawal, heightened self-consciousness, and inconsistent behavioural responses, which do not appear to align with the nature or quality of interaction offered by the father during visitations. The child’s conduct suggests external conditioning rather than an independent or spontaneous reluctance, particularly given the child’s ability to engage positively once interaction is facilitated. In view of the above, I submit my recommendations as under: 1. Parental Counselling- In view of the emotional stress experienced by the minor child due to ongoing parental conflict, it is recommended that separate parental counselling sessions be undertaken. The counselling should focus on addressing behaviours that may, directly or indirectly, contribute to the child’s emotional distress or interfere with the child’s relationship with the other parent. 2. Continued supervised visitation- Given the child’s demonstrated ability to interact positively with the father in a supportive environment, further supervised visitation between the father and the child is advised to build father-son bond.” 4. He submits that in view of the recommendation, the Court should not have directed that the child should be brought before the learned Family Court. 5. Effectively, the Petitioner seeks to question the authority of the learned Family Judge to request for the presence of the minor child in 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 10/08/2026 at 12:23:11 Court. The entire Petition is premised on the alleged non-requirement for interaction with the minor child with this aspect being underlined and emboldened at various places in the pleadings. To this Court’s mind, this is against the very fabric and nature of the duties and functions exercised by the learned Family Court Judge. It is, in fact, incumbent upon the learned Family Court Judge to exercise his jurisdiction by taking into account the welfare of the child, while keeping in mind various consideration inherent in matrimonial disputes. To contend that the Order directing the presence of the minor child in the Court, which may also entail the learned Judge exercising his discretion to take the opportunity to interact with the child, is erroneous, does not appear to be the correct approach taken by the Petitioner. In fact, the Petition is clearly an abuse of process of the Court. 6. Furthermore, the recommendation relied upon by the Petitioner does not seem to indicate, in any manner, that it would be deleterious for the minor child to be requested to be brought to the Court. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and queried as to when was the last interaction that took place between the learned Family Court and the minor child. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner instead of answering the said query, sought to rely upon the recommendations resulting from interaction with the counsellor. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the manner in which the present Petition has come to be filed is clearly against the tenets of how family courts should be able to proceed in family matters. 10. This Court notes that the last interaction in the present proceedings, between the learned Family Court Judge and the child 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 10/08/2026 at 12:23:11 was as late as in December, 2024. 11. This Court is also informed by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, who appears on advance service, that there are applications pending in respect of interactions to be held with the child. 12. Furthermore, assuming that there were some apprehensions in respect of the Order passed, this Court is unable to appreciate why appropriate steps in this regard could not have been taken before the learned Family Court itself, instead of rushing to this Court by way of the present Petition. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, who was accompanied by the Petitioner in Court, was queried as to whether he may wish to avail the opportunity of withdrawing the present Petition without prejudice to his rights & contentions, but the Petitioner chose to invite the present Order. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the present Petition is a clear abuse of the process of Court and therefore is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Respondent within a period of two (02) weeks from today. 14. The present Petition stands dismissed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. AUGUST 07, 2026/v/va 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 10/08/2026 at 12:23:11