Ankita Utreja v. Rakesh Chowdhary
$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 262/2025, CRL.M.A. 16988/2025 ANKITA UTREJA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate with Petitioner in person.
versus RAKESH CHOWDHARY .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Rupendra Kumar Karn, Ms. Nagmani Kumar, Mr. Manish Kumar Jha, Mr. Sumit Kumar and Mr. Anup N., Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 05.08.2025 1.
The present petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 assails order dated 8th May, 20251 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, West, Delhi in CA No. 126/2025.2 By the said order, the Appellate Court set-aside/modified the orders dated 22nd April, 2025 and 26th April, 2025 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court which granted interim custody of the minor child to the Petitioner (mother). As a consequence, custody of the child remained with the Respondent (father).
2.
Taking into consideration the tender age of the child, this Court, by its interim order dated 28th May, 2025, directed that interim custody be restored 1 "the impugned order"
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
to the Petitioner. The Respondent challenged this direction by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8839/2025 before the Supreme Court. However, the said petition was dismissed by order in the following terms: "By impugned order. High Court has given the interim custody of the boy child aged five years to the respondent and the matter is re-notified for hearing on 05.08.2025.
2. In view of the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, the High Court shall decide the matter on its own merits as expeditiously as possible.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 3.
It is evident that the impugned order relates solely to interim custody, while the question of permanent custody remains pending adjudication before the Guardianship Court in proceedings instituted under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram. Moreover, the impugned decision itself emanates from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which the Mahila Court is statutorily empowered to grant interim custody alone. In the foregoing circumstances, and particularly since both parties, who are present in person, have arrived at a mutually agreeable interim custody arrangement, this Court is of the view that no further directions are warranted at this stage. 4.
The terms of interim custody of the child reached as agreed between the parties, are as follows:
i.
The interim custody of the minor child shall remain with the Petitioner (mother).
ii.
The Respondent (father) shall be entitled to visitation/interim custody on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each calendar month. On such occasions, the 2 titled Rakesh Chowdhary v. Ankita Utreja The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Respondent shall collect the child from the Petitioner's residence at 12:00 noon on Saturday and return the child by 2:00 PM on the following Sunday. In the event the Petitioner or the child are not available, or if the scheduled visitation is otherwise impracticable, the parties shall, in a spirit of cooperation, mutually agree upon alternate dates, ensuring that the Respondent continues to have access on two weekends each month. iii.
The Petitioner shall facilitate a daily video call between the child and the Respondent, preferably between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM. In the event the child is unavailable during this window owing to prior commitments, the parties may mutually adjust the timing to ensure the interaction takes place. Should the video call be missed on any given day due to unavoidable circumstances or some other reasons, the parties shall make appropriate arrangements for a compensatory call at the earliest. 5.
It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid arrangement shall continue to remain in operation unless modified by the Mahila Court, should any change in circumstances so warrant. Furthermore, the Guardianship Court shall proceed to adjudicate the issue of permanent custody on its own merits, uninfluenced by the present order, and after affording both parties a full and fair opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. 6.
All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 7.
The petition, along with all pending applications, stands disposed of accordingly.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 5, 2025 nk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.