VIVEK MALHOTRA vs SHILPA SOOD

Judgment text excerpt

$~52 & 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 + CONT.CAS(C) 876/2025 VIVEK MALHOTRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Sakshi Jain and Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Advs. with Petitioner in person. versus SHILPA SOOD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Mr. Lakhan Gupta, Advs. with Respondent in-person. + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 426/2024, CM APPL. 73344/2024, CM APPL. 15953/2025, CM APPL. 15954/2025, CM APPL. 16887/2025, CM APPL. 16890/2025 and CM APPL. 40087/2025 SHILPA SOOD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Mr. Siddharth Mullick and Mr. Lakhan Gupta, Advs. with Appellant in-person versus VIVEK MALHOTRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Mr.Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Sakshi Jain and Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Advs. with Respondent in- person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (ORAL) Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS(C) 876/2025 and connected matter Page 1 of 7 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:16.09.2025 15:55:06 ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of MAT.APP.(F.C.) 426/2024 & CONT.CAS(C) 876/2025. The Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Mother of the minor child challenging the interlocutory order dated 23.09.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Family Court, whereby unsupervised visitation rights were granted to the Respondent/father on the first and fourth Saturday of every month from 02:00 PM to 05:00 PM. The Contempt Petition has been filed by the Respondent alleging that the Appellant has obstructed implementation of the said order by continuing to interfere during visitation hours particularly by holding the minor child’s hand