# Paying maintenance but blocked from seeing your child: your options **TL;DR:** Maintenance and access to your child are two different legal rights, decided by two different forums, and one cannot be used as leverage against the other. If you are paying maintenance under a BNSS Section 144 or Section 125 CrPC order, or a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act order, and you are not seeing your child, you almost always need a separate visitation or custody application under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 or your personal law, filed in the family court or district court. Stopping payment to force access, or taking your child without an order to force a settlement, are the two moves that destroy your case. The remedy for a disobeyed access order is an execution application, a contempt petition, or in a genuine concealment, a habeas corpus petition before the High Court. --- ## On this page - [Why maintenance and visitation are not the same case](#why-maintenance-and-visitation-are-not-the-same-case) - [Where you actually file for access](#where-you-actually-file-for-access) - [The welfare of the child, and what courts weigh](#the-welfare-of-the-child-and-what-courts-weigh) - [Interim visitation and how fast it moves](#interim-visitation-and-how-fast-it-moves) - [Supervised visitation, video calls, and vacation access](#supervised-visitation-video-calls-and-vacation-access) - [The enforcement problem: when the order is simply ignored](#the-enforcement-problem-when-the-order-is-simply-ignored) - [Parental alienation and how courts are starting to treat it](#parental-alienation-and-how-courts-are-starting-to-treat-it) - [Mediation and the family court's conciliation stage](#mediation-and-the-family-courts-conciliation-stage) - [The mirror problem: maintenance ordered but not paid](#the-mirror-problem-maintenance-ordered-but-not-paid) - [Two moves that destroy your case](#two-moves-that-destroy-your-case) - [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions) --- ## Why maintenance and visitation are not the same case If you searched for this, you are probably a parent paying under an order and you have not seen your child in months. The instinct is to treat the two as one fight: they are keeping the child from me, so why should I keep paying. That instinct is the single most common way this kind of case is lost. Indian courts have said this plainly and repeatedly: maintenance is the child's right to be supported, and it does not depend on whether the paying parent gets to meet the child. The Madras High Court, in P. Geetha v. V. Kirubaharan, held that denial of visitation is not a ground to withhold maintenance, and that a father's duty to maintain his child sits on a higher footing than any grievance he has about access. The reverse is equally true, though less often litigated: a custodial parent cannot condition access to the child on payment being cleared. A magistrate's court handling a maintenance petition under [BNSS Section 144](/blog/maintenance-bnss-section-144) (the renumbered [Section 125 CrPC](/blog/bnss-crpc-section-mapping)) is answering one question, whether the child is being adequately supported. It is generally not the forum built to decide how much time you get with your child, on what schedule, and under what conditions. That is a separate legal question, usually decided in a separate proceeding, sometimes even by a different court. This split surprises people because it feels unfair on its face. You are being asked to keep performing an obligation while the other side is not performing anything at all. But the law is not organised around fairness-as-symmetry between the parents. It is organised around the child, and the child's entitlement to support does not evaporate because an adult dispute over scheduling has not been resolved. Practically, this means you are very likely going to need two proceedings running at once if you are in this situation: the maintenance matter that already exists, and a fresh application asking a court to fix your access to the child. Filing the second one is not optional if you actually want to see your child again. Nothing forces the other side to offer it voluntarily once a maintenance order is in place and they have no immediate incentive to negotiate. Where one parent has since moved abroad, this split gets a further layer, since an Indian court's jurisdiction and a foreign court's custody order can pull in different directions, covered in [which court moves first in an NRI divorce](/blog/nri-divorce-custody-overseas-assets). --- ## Where you actually file for access There is no single "visitation court" in India. Which forum you go to depends on what proceeding already exists between you and the other parent, and which personal law applies. **If a matrimonial case is pending or decided (divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights),** the family court hearing that case has continuing power to pass orders on custody, guardianship, and access as part of that proceeding, most commonly invoked under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh parties, or the corresponding provision under your applicable personal law. This is usually the fastest route if a matrimonial case already exists, because the same court already has the parties and the facts before it, and can pass an interim application within that file rather than starting from zero. **If there is no matrimonial case, or you were never married to the other parent, or you want a standalone determination of custody and access,** the application goes under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, read with the [Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956](/blog/child-custody-laws-india) for Hindu parties, or the relevant personal law for other communities (Muslim, Christian and Parsi law each treat guardianship differently, and the Guardians and Wards Act supplements rather than replaces those rules). This application is filed before the district court or the family court exercising Guardians and Wards Act jurisdiction, in the place where the child ordinarily resides, not necessarily where you live or where the maintenance case is pending. **If there is a Domestic Violence Act order in the background,** custody and visitation directions can also be sought under Section 21 of the [Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005](/blog/domestic-violence-act-protection-residence-rights) as part of that proceeding, before the magistrate handling the DV complaint. This route exists specifically because DV proceedings move fast and the Act allows the magistrate to grant temporary custody orders and, on application, visitation for the non-custodial parent, subject to conditions that protect the child and the aggrieved person. A parent already relying on [residence rights under the DV Act](/blog/wife-residence-rights-husband-house-pwdva) is usually litigating custody in this same file rather than opening a fourth proceeding. The practical point is this: your maintenance order under BNSS Section 144, a DV order, and a custody or visitation order under the Guardians and Wards Act or the Hindu Marriage Act are not automatically linked. You typically have to open the second file yourself. This is a different arrangement from a [mutual consent divorce](/blog/mutual-consent-divorce-process), where custody terms are usually negotiated and recorded upfront as part of the settlement. A [family settlement deed](/blog/family-settlement-deed-india) can consolidate arrangements later if both sides agree, but you cannot wait for voluntary cooperation before filing. ### Forum comparison | You want | Governing law | Where you file | Typical first step | |---|---|---|---| | Ongoing child support | BNSS Section 144 (old Section 125 CrPC) | Magistrate's court | Petition for maintenance, interim order possible | | Visitation or custody, matrimonial case exists | Hindu Marriage Act Section 26 or equivalent personal law | Family court hearing the matrimonial matter | Interim application (IA) in the pending case | | Visitation or custody, no matrimonial case | Guardians and Wards Act 1890 with Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 | District court or family court, child's ordinary residence | Guardianship petition seeking custody/visitation | | Access alongside a DV complaint | Section 21, Domestic Violence Act 2005 | Magistrate handling the DV complaint | Application within the pending DV case | | Order made but ignored | Order 21 CPC (execution) or Contempt of Courts Act 1971 | Same court that passed the order, or High Court for contempt | Execution petition or contempt petition | | Child concealed, whereabouts unclear or access physically blocked | Article 226, Constitution of India | High Court | Habeas corpus petition | --- ## The welfare of the child, and what courts weigh Every one of these routes converges on the same legal standard: the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, not the comparative entitlement of either parent. This is settled law under the Guardians and Wards Act and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court across decades of custody jurisprudence. It means the court is not deciding who "deserves" the child more. It is deciding what arrangement serves the child's physical safety, emotional stability, education, and continuity of relationships, including the relationship with the parent who does not have custody. In practice, courts weigh a cluster of factors, none of them individually decisive: - The child's age and, where the child is old enough to express a preference intelligently, that preference (courts typically start giving real weight to this from around age nine or ten, though there is no fixed statutory age). - Which parent has been the child's primary caregiver, and how long the current arrangement has existed. Courts are cautious about disturbing a settled routine without strong reason. - Each parent's ability to provide a stable home, schooling continuity, and financial support (which loops back to why maintenance still matters even in the visitation fight). - Evidence of violence, substance abuse, or conduct that would make contact unsafe for the child, as distinct from conduct that merely reflects badly on the parent as a spouse. - Whether the parent seeking access has stayed engaged, or has let long gaps develop, since gaps get used against the seeking parent even when the gap was caused by obstruction. Note what is not on that list: whether maintenance has been paid in full, and whether the marriage failed because of one party's fault. Adultery, cruelty allegations in the matrimonial suit, including a finding of [prolonged separation as mental cruelty](/blog/prolonged-separation-mental-cruelty-divorce), and payment history are not proxies for parenting capacity, and judges are generally alert to a party trying to smuggle the marital fight into the custody fight. --- ## Interim visitation and how fast it moves You do not have to wait for the final custody hearing, which can run for years, to get some access. Every one of the forums above allows an interim application asking the court to fix a workable schedule while the main matter is pending. Courts have increasingly recognised that a long gap in contact is itself harmful to the child and to the relationship, and several High Courts have said explicitly that continuity of parental bonding should not wait for the final decision. How fast this actually moves depends heavily on the specific court's docket, but a realistic expectation, not a guarantee, is a first hearing on the interim application within a few weeks of filing and notice to the other side, and an interim order, even a modest one such as supervised weekend visits or a single video call slot, within one to three months if the matter is contested. If the other parent does not appear or does not oppose, it can move faster. If they contest hard and the court orders a home study or counsellor's report, it takes longer. What helps you get a faster and more favourable interim order: - File promptly. A parent who lets a year pass before applying gives the other side an argument that the child has "settled" without them. - Ask for something modest and specific in the interim application, a defined day, time, and location, rather than an open-ended demand. Courts grant specific, low-conflict proposals faster than vague ones. - Bring your maintenance-payment record. It does not decide the custody question, but consistent payment establishes you as a responsible, engaged parent, which is relevant to welfare even though it is not dispositive. --- ## Supervised visitation, video calls, and vacation access Not every access order looks the same, and asking for the right kind of order for your situation matters more than asking for the maximum. **Unsupervised, scheduled visitation** is the default outcome where there is no safety concern, typically alternate weekends, one weekday evening, and a split of school holidays. This is what most interim orders eventually settle into once the parties show they can manage handovers without incident. **Supervised visitation** is ordered where there is a genuine safety concern, a history of violence, an allegation of substance abuse, or a very long gap in contact where the child needs a graduated reintroduction. Supervision can be through a family member acceptable to both sides, a court-appointed counsellor, or a Child Welfare Committee referral in serious cases. It is meant to be a bridge to unsupervised access, not a permanent state, and you can apply to lift supervision once a track record is established. **Video call access** has become a standard interim tool, particularly where the child is in a different city or where in-person contact is disputed and a court wants to preserve some contact while the larger issue is litigated. A video-call order is easy to seek and easy to violate quietly, muted calls, "the child is busy," calls cut short, so if you get one, keep a simple log of dates and outcomes from day one. That log is what turns a vague complaint into an enforcement application later, and [preserving evidence properly before you call a lawyer](/blog/preserve-evidence-before-calling-lawyer) explains how to keep that log in a form the court will actually credit. **Vacation and festival access** is usually addressed separately from the weekly schedule: a block of summer holiday time, alternating festivals such as Diwali or Christmas, and the child's birthday. Courts favour clear, calendar-based splits over case-by-case negotiation, because case-by-case negotiation is exactly where disputes recur. Ask for what actually fits your situation. A parent who has had zero contact for a year and demands immediate unsupervised overnight custody in the first application usually gets a more cautious order than a parent who proposes a graduated schedule starting with supervised day visits. --- ## The enforcement problem: when the order is simply ignored This is the real subject of this article, because getting the order is often the easy part. Getting it obeyed is where most parents in this situation actually get stuck. An access or custody order that is disobeyed is not self-enforcing. Nobody shows up at the door to hand over the child. You have three escalating tools, and which one fits depends on what exactly is happening. **Execution application (Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure).** If the order was passed by a civil or family court, you can file an execution petition asking that same court to enforce its own order, treating the access direction the way a decree for an injunction is enforced. This is the standard first move for straightforward non-compliance, the other parent simply not bringing the child at the appointed time. The court can direct compliance, and in continuing default can use its coercive powers, including in appropriate cases directing that the child be produced through court officers or the police, though courts are cautious about heavy-handed enforcement given the child's presence and reserve that for genuine, persistent defiance. **Contempt petition (Contempt of Courts Act 1971).** Willful, deliberate disobedience of a court order is contempt, and courts do treat repeated denial of a clear access order as a serious matter once it is shown to be intentional rather than the result of a genuine scheduling conflict or the child's illness. A contempt petition can be filed before the court that passed the order (for family court and district court orders) and, for High Court orders, before the High Court itself. The threat of contempt, and the record it creates, often does more to change the other parent's behaviour than the execution route alone, because contempt carries potential imprisonment and fine, not just a repeated direction to comply. **Habeas corpus petition, one of the [five writs](/blog/five-writs-explained) under [Article 226](/blog/high-courts-article-226) of the Constitution, before a High Court.** This is the remedy for the more serious situation: the child has been taken away and concealed, moved without notice, or the whereabouts are being deliberately hidden so that even an execution or contempt application has no address to enforce against. Habeas corpus is not a routine visitation-enforcement tool and High Courts have said so, it exists for unlawful detention, and courts are cautious about converting an ordinary custody dispute into a habeas corpus matter dressed up in urgent language. But where there is genuine concealment, or a parent has removed the child in breach of an existing order and gone to ground, it is the right and fast-moving remedy, because a High Court can issue directions to locate the child and, in serious cases, involve police assistance in production. Recent decisions, including a 2026 Delhi High Court ruling dismissing a habeas corpus petition where the petitioning parent had concealed a competing foreign court order, show that High Courts scrutinise these petitions closely for candour. Come to a habeas corpus petition with clean hands and full disclosure, not partial facts. A practitioner thread on the enforcement question puts the working answer plainly: "if they continuously disobey the order of the court then file contempt petition," and separately, "you can file a contempt and execution petition under order 21 in the court to get order executed." The same thread also carries a caution worth repeating here: do not "take law into your hand." Every enforcement route above works through the court and, where necessary, the police acting on the court's direction. Self-help, showing up and taking the child yourself, or threatening the other parent directly, converts your enforcement problem into a criminal exposure problem. If you need the mechanics of drafting the petition itself, see [how to file a contempt petition](/blog/how-to-file-contempt-petition), and if the e-filing portal rejects your execution or contempt petition on a technical defect, [fixing the common e-filing rejection errors](/blog/efiling-3-rejection-error-fix-guide) walks through the usual causes. ### Enforcement tools compared | Situation | Tool | Where filed | What it can achieve | |---|---|---|---| | Occasional missed visit, disputed reasons | Warning letter, then execution application | Same court that passed the order | Direction to comply, groundwork for contempt if it continues | | Repeated, willful non-compliance | Contempt petition | Same court (family/district) or High Court for its own orders | Fine, imprisonment risk for the defaulting parent, strong compliance pressure | | Child concealed or removed, whereabouts hidden | Habeas corpus petition | High Court, Article 226 | Court-directed search and production, sometimes with police assistance | | Employer will not cooperate with a maintenance deduction | Salary attachment application | Magistrate's court that passed the maintenance order | Direct deduction from wages at source | --- ## Parental alienation and how courts are starting to treat it Parental alienation, a child being coached or manipulated by one parent to reject or fear the other without a genuine underlying reason, is a real pattern that Indian family courts increasingly see argued, but the law here is still developing and you should not overstate how far it has gone. The Supreme Court addressed this directly in Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, decided in June 2026. The Court held that "parental alienation syndrome" is not something a court can simply label based on a general impression. It has to be proved through specific, evidenced instances of alienating conduct, not asserted as a diagnosis. The Court also held that psychological evaluation of a child cannot be ordered as a routine step in custody or visitation disputes, it has to be justified on the facts, because subjecting a child to repeated evaluation carries its own harm. What this means for you practically: if you believe the other parent is turning your child against you, do not lead with the label. Build a record. Keep contemporaneous notes of specific incidents, calls the child refuses that were previously normal, statements the child repeats that sound scripted or age-inappropriate, sudden reversals in affection that coincide with time spent with the other parent. A court is far more likely to act on a documented pattern of specific conduct than on the word "alienation" used as a conclusion. This is also an area where a family counsellor's report, ordered by the court rather than privately commissioned, carries more weight than a parent's own assessment. Do not weaponise the term either. Courts are alert to "parental alienation" being raised reflexively by a parent losing an access fight as a way to discredit the custodial parent, and an unsubstantiated allegation can damage your own credibility with the bench. --- ## Mediation and the family court's conciliation stage Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984, a family court is required to make an initial effort to help the parties reach a settlement before the matter proceeds as an adversarial trial, and most family courts route custody and visitation disputes through a conciliation officer or court-annexed mediation cell at an early stage. The [Mediation Act 2023](/blog/mediation-act-2023) formalised and strengthened this framework, and generally steers family disputes, including child custody and visitation, toward pre-litigation or court-referred mediation, with an explicit carve-out for cases involving domestic violence, where mediation is not treated as mandatory or even appropriate given the power imbalance. This is not a formality to sit through impatiently. A mediated settlement on visitation, filed and recorded before the court, becomes enforceable as a court order once accepted, and it is often faster to reach and easier to comply with than a contested order imposed after a fought hearing, because both sides had a hand in designing the schedule. If your case does not involve violence or genuine safety risk, go into the conciliation stage seriously rather than treating it as a box to tick before the "real" litigation starts. Most family disputes referred to mediation resolve within three to six sessions. If mediation fails, or is inappropriate because of a DV order in the background, the matter proceeds to contested hearings, and everything above about interim applications and enforcement applies in full. --- ## The mirror problem: maintenance ordered but not paid The other half of this problem, less discussed but just as common, is the custodial parent who has a maintenance order and is not being paid, sometimes for the specific reason that they are being accused, fairly or not, of blocking access. If you are that parent, the same principle protects you: your right to maintenance for the child does not depend on how generous you have been with visitation. Non-payment of an order under BNSS Section 144 (old Section 125 CrPC) is enforceable through the same magistrate's court that passed it, and the remedies scale with the degree of default: - **Levy as a fine.** Under Section 128 CrPC's renumbered provision in BNSS, if maintenance is not paid, the magistrate can issue a warrant to levy the unpaid amount in the manner of a fine, essentially treating the arrears as a penal recovery. - **Attachment of salary.** Where the defaulter is salaried, the court can direct the employer to deduct the ordered amount at source and remit it, which is often the single most effective enforcement step against a salaried defaulter because it removes their control over the payment. - **Imprisonment for continuing default.** For persistent non-payment, the magistrate can sentence the defaulter to imprisonment, historically up to one month for each month of default, or until payment is made, whichever is earlier, though this is a coercive measure to compel payment, not a substitute for it, and arrears remain owed even after any jail term. - **Bank account attachment and distress proceedings against property**, available in serious and continuing default, going beyond salary deduction where the defaulter is not conventionally salaried or has hidden income. One genuine limitation worth knowing before you file: courts have held that future salary cannot be attached in advance for arrears, attachment reaches what is currently due and payable, not a standing lien on all future income. Build your enforcement application around current and accruing default, not a demand to freeze future earnings wholesale. If you are the custodial parent in this position, file the enforcement application in the same court that passed the maintenance order, with a clear ledger of what was due, what was paid, and the gap, month by month. A vague claim of "he doesn't pay regularly" moves slower than a dated table the magistrate can act on directly. --- ## Two moves that destroy your case Everything above assumes you are working the system as it is built. Two moves outside that system reliably backfire, and both show up constantly in the fact patterns lawyers and forums describe. **Stopping payment to force access.** This is the paying parent's version of self-help, and courts treat it as exactly that: a unilateral decision to breach an existing order because you did not get what you wanted from a different proceeding. It does not create leverage. It creates arrears, exposes you to the enforcement tools described above, salary attachment, warrant, imprisonment risk, and it hands the other side a clean, sympathetic narrative in the access fight you are also trying to win: that you abandoned your obligation the moment it was inconvenient. As the Madras High Court put it, visitation denial is not a ground for maintenance exemption, and a court asked to weigh your parenting credentials in a custody matter will not view a deliberate payment stoppage kindly. **Taking the child without an order.** This is the custodial-side mirror and the access-side temptation both, whether it is a custodial parent relocating with the child to make access practically impossible, or a non-custodial parent taking the child during a visit and not returning them to force a renegotiation. Either version invites the other parent to go straight to a habeas corpus petition or a police complaint, and it hands a court exactly the kind of unilateral, non-court-sanctioned conduct that welfare-of-the-child analysis penalises hardest. If a police notice does arrive after a heated handover, [legal notice, police notice, and summons: how they differ](/blog/legal-notice-vs-police-notice-vs-summons) explains what it actually obliges you to do, which is usually less alarming than the notice itself makes it feel. A parent who has demonstrated they will act outside the court's process is a parent a court trusts less with unsupervised discretion going forward, which is the opposite of what either of these moves is trying to achieve. If the arrangement genuinely is not working, whether because of unpaid maintenance or blocked access, the answer is always the same: go back to the court that has the file, or open the file that is missing, and ask for a variation. It is slower than taking matters into your own hands. It is also the only path that does not actively damage the outcome you are trying to reach. --- ## Frequently asked questions ### Can I stop paying maintenance if I am not being allowed to see my child? No. Maintenance and visitation are legally independent obligations in India, and courts have held explicitly that denial of visitation is not a ground to withhold or reduce maintenance. Stopping payment exposes you to salary attachment, warrant, and imprisonment for arrears, and damages your credibility in the separate visitation case. ### Where do I file for visitation if there is no divorce case pending? File a guardianship petition under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, read with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 for Hindu parties or your applicable personal law otherwise, before the district court or family court where the child ordinarily resides. This is a standalone proceeding and does not require a matrimonial case to exist first. ### How long does it take to get interim visitation? There is no fixed statutory timeline, but courts generally treat prolonged loss of contact as harmful to the child and try to move interim applications quickly. A realistic range is a first hearing within a few weeks of filing and an interim order within one to three months for a contested matter, faster if uncontested. ### What is the difference between an execution application and a contempt petition for a disobeyed visitation order? An execution application under Order 21 CPC asks the same court to enforce its own order through its ordinary powers. A contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 seeks to punish willful, deliberate disobedience with fine or imprisonment, and is generally used once non-compliance is repeated and clearly intentional rather than a one-off scheduling issue. ### When should I file a habeas corpus petition instead of a contempt petition? Habeas corpus before a High Court under Article 226 is for genuine unlawful detention or concealment, where a child has been taken away, hidden, or the other parent's whereabouts with the child are unknown, so that ordinary execution or contempt has no address to act against. It is not a routine tool for a missed weekend visit, and High Courts scrutinise these petitions for full and honest disclosure. ### Is parental alienation recognised as a legal ground in India? Indian courts, including the Supreme Court in a June 2026 ruling, have acknowledged that alienating behaviour by a parent is a real concern courts should watch for, but have declined to treat "parental alienation syndrome" as a diagnosable condition that can be assumed. It has to be proved through specific, documented instances of alienating conduct, not asserted as a label, and routine psychological testing of the child is not automatically ordered. ### Do I have to attend mediation before my visitation case is heard? Family courts are required under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984 to make an initial effort at conciliation, and the Mediation Act 2023 has strengthened referral to mediation for custody and visitation disputes. This is not required, and is often inappropriate, where there is a Domestic Violence Act order in the background. ### Can salary be attached for future maintenance arrears in advance? No. Courts have held that only currently due and accrued maintenance can be recovered through attachment, not a standing claim on all future salary. Enforcement applications should be framed around the specific arrears that have already fallen due. ### What if the other parent moves the child to a different city or state? If this happens without a court order permitting relocation, and especially if it is done to defeat an existing access arrangement, it is a strong fact in your favour in both an enforcement application and, if the child's whereabouts become genuinely unclear, a habeas corpus petition before the High Court with jurisdiction over where the child is believed to be. ### Does the child's own preference decide custody? No single factor decides custody. A child's expressed preference, where the child is old enough to form and articulate one intelligently, is one input the court weighs alongside caregiving history, stability, safety, and each parent's capacity to provide continuity, all under the umbrella standard of the child's welfare. ### Can I use an AI legal research tool to check whether a case like Geetha v. Kirubaharan is still good law before I cite it? Yes, and you should verify any precedent before relying on it in a filing rather than trusting a secondary summary. [Checking whether a judgment is still good law](/blog/good-law-checking) is a standard research step, and a tool such as Niyam, built for Indian case law with citations back to the underlying judgment, is useful here precisely because it lets you confirm a cited principle against the actual text rather than a paraphrase, or [find similar judgments](/blog/ai-find-similar-judgments) on the same point if you need more than one authority. ### What happens if I ignore a visitation order because I believe the other parent is unsafe? You cannot unilaterally decide this. File an urgent modification application asking the court to suspend or supervise access based on the specific safety concern, with evidence. Refusing to comply without going back to the court exposes you to the same contempt and execution risk as any other unilateral non-compliance, regardless of your underlying reason.