The Delhi High Court in the case Pankaj Jain Versus. Parul Jain observed that in the matters relating to the custody of children. The Court has to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the children. The vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed in the case where a petition was filled challenging an order dated June 8, 2022 passed by the Family Court, In the order it was stated that the court permitted the mother to take the child to Malaysia for a period of nine days. It was added by the Family Court that the mother shall bring back the child to Delhi positively on July 3 for her to attend the school which would reopen after summer vacations. The court had also directed both the mother and the father to strictly adhere to the custody and visitation schedule in terms of its earlier judicial orders. Adding to this, the father approached the High Court arguing that the Family Court did not take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and passed the order mechanically without taking into account the fact that the mother was a flight risk. It was also claimed by the father, in the past, it had happened, which was also noted by High court in various cases, that children were not brought back. The Court observed, while looking at the facts of the case: The court stated that the court is of the firm view that in the matter relating to custody of the children, the court has to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the children. It was noticed by the Court that the Family Court had passed a detailed order allowing the child to be taken by the mother to Malaysia for a period of nine days. It also noted that earlier also, the child was allowed to be taken to Dubai by the mother, the order was passed by the court after taking into account all the submissions of the parties. The Court stated that the consideration of Court and any interference by this Court at this stage and at such a short notice would only cause mental trauma to the child. However, the Family Court does not feel any necessity to interfere into the orders of the learned Judge. The Court also noticed that it did not find any perversity, malafide or nonapplication of mind in the order passed by the Family Court, while upholding the impugned order. A notice is issued by Court to the respondent mother, On July 15, the bench listed the matter before the roster bench
