1. We are informed by the parties that the respondent and his parents had very healthy visitation with Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra, the child of the parties, on Saturday and Sunday i.e. on 7 and 8 May, 2016.
2. We are also informed that the child has today met with Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran, learned Mediator as well as Ms. Swati Shah, Counsellor in SAMADHAN - Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and that the mediation efforts are still underway.
3. The son of the parties - Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra has been produced before us today. We have also had a long conversation with him and are deeply impressed with the maturity of this intelligent 6½ year old child who displays self confidence and a remarkable capacity of expressing himself with clarity. He exhibits no sign of confusion or nervousness at all.
4. We also note that the child was comfortable in his interaction with his father and grandparents in court. The child has expressed happiness at his visitations with his father and grandparents. He unreservedly stated that he looks forward to the same. Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra is also able to identify other relatives in Kenya and enthusiastically refers to his experiences in that country. It is apparent that the child has bonded well with them.
5. We must note that the child is at the same time deeply attached to his mother and Nani. His bearing and personality clearly bear the stamp of the fine upbringing being given to him by the appellant and her mother.
6. As of now, since 9 February, 2016, the child is meeting his father and grandparents between 10:30 am and 05:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday in the second week of every month and for two hours on Friday in the second week of every month. The visitation is supervised as the court has appointed a Counsellor who has been directed to remain present throughout the visitation.
7. We are informed that the child has two passports - one Kenyan and the other British. The Counsellor appears to have been appointed for two purposes - firstly to assuage the appellant's fear that the child would be removed from India and secondly, to ensure his comfort. The second purpose appears to have been achieved.
8. It cannot be disputed that for his complete development, the child needs nurturing from both parents and the love of all grandparents and relatives, if possible. Quality time with his parents and relatives is undeniably in his welfare. The constant presence of the counsellor - certainly an outsider - would certainly prevent the intimacies between a son, his father and grandparents i.e. close family. They have no quality “private” family time.
9. The child informs us that in the last visitation over 7/8 May, 2016, his father had indulged the child's wish to play cricket in the park. Certainly such activity may not have been comfortable for the Counsellor. But outdoor games are a natural aspiration of any child.
10. So far as the fear that the child may be removed, under orders of the Family Court, the respondent deposits his passport in the court before each and every visitation. The passport is returned only after the visitation is over. In addition, the British passport of the child stands deposited in court.
11. The Kenyan passport of the child is stated to be missing and on 6 May, 2016, we have passed orders regarding the same. Upon deposit of the Kenyan passport as well, all fears of the removal of the child from India would stand assuaged. Perhaps the Family Court could pass orders to the Border Control authorities as well regarding prohibition on removal of the child from India, if such orders are additionally sought. Any modification of the visitation, if necessary, ought to be reasonably considered by the Family Court only after compliance of the above, if application for the same is filed by the respondent.
12. Inasmuch as the visitation timings have been increased only by the order dated 9 February, 2016 and in the light of the above factors, it would be appropriate if, for the time being, the visitation is maintained in terms of the order dated 9 February, 2016, as modified by the order 4 May, 2016.
13. It is agreed by the parties that given the ensuing summer vacations of the child, the respondent and his parents will be given longer visitation in the first week of June, 2016.
14. It is pointed out that in our order dated 6 May, 2016, we have erroneously noted that the appellant is to procure the passport whereas it is actually the responsibility of the respondent to do so as we are informed that only the father of the minor child can obtain the passport. We therefore, make the necessary corrections in para 5 of our order dated 6 May, 2016 which shall read as follows:
“5. The photocopy of the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR), which has been lodged by the appellant with regard to the Kenyan passport of the child - Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra, has been handed over with the original receipt to the respondent in court today. The respondent shall apply for a Kenyan passport of the child within a period of ten days from today. The respondent shall furnish the copy of the application to the appellant immediately after completing the formalities. The appellant shall be informed in writing about the filing. The passport as and when delivered by the Kenyan authorities shall be filed by the respondent with the Family Court in the guardianship petition and shall be kept in a sealed cover for safety.”
15. List for awaiting outcome of the mediation on 11 August, 2016.