NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2247-23
AJIT DALAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ASHWINI DALAL,
Defendant-Respondent. ________________________
Submitted April 8, 2025 – Decided August 22, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FM-12-1279-19.
Ajit Dalal, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Ajit Dalal appeals
from the Family Part's March 14, 2024 order denying without prejudice, in part, and granting, in part, his motion to enforce litigant's rights. Plaintiff appeals
from the provision of the order granting his request to have once-daily, fifteen-
minute telephone or video call communication with the minor child "if he
purchase[d] a cell phone for the child for that purpose."
Plaintiff also appeals from the provisions of the order denying without
prejudice his request (1) to allow him to travel with the parties' minor child to
India on vacation or in the case of emergency; (2) to require that defendant may
only take the parties' minor child out of the country only with plaintiff's written
consent; (3) to require both parties to attend mediation with the designated
mediator to address "all outstanding issues, including but not limited to,
citizenship, documentation, and extracurricular activities for the minor child ,"
and to equally share the cost of mediation; (4) to compel plaintiff to cooperate
with the execution of the minor child's renunciation of citizenship from India,
the United States (U.S.) Certificate of Citizenship, and the Overseas Citizen of
India (OCI) card;1 and (5) for an order prohibiting defendant from demanding
1 The Constitution of India prohibits dual citizenship with a foreign country. Instead, the Overseas Citizen of India Scheme allows persons of Indian [o]rigin who migrated from India and acquired citizenship of a foreign country other than Pakistan, Bangladesh or such other country as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, may specify, to obtain an eligible for the OCI. A registered OCI is a multiple entry, multipurpose, life-long visa
A-2247-23 2 reimbursement from plaintiff for the child's U.S. passport, OCI, Indian visa, and
extracurricular activities for which he has not agreed. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
I.
We derive the following facts and procedural history from the motion
record. The parties were married for eight years. In August 2012, the parties'
daughter was born in India. In 2019, the parties were divorced by a dual final
judgment of divorce (DFJOD), which incorporated their marital settlement
agreement (MSA). The MSA provided the parties would share joint custody of
the minor child and designated defendant as the parent of primary residence.
The MSA also set forth a parenting and holiday schedule, which was reviewed
and initialed by the parties. Although the MSA does not explicitly address the
for visiting India and the registered holder is exempted from registration with Foreign Regional Registration Officer or Foreign Registration Officer for any length of stay in India. Both parents' signatures are required for an OCI application. Consular Services Overseas Citizen of India Consular Scheme, https://www.mea.gov.in/overseas-citizenship-of-india-scheme (last visited August 11, 2025).
The OCI card is obtained after a Renunciation/Surrender Certificate is issued by the Indian government when a person renounces their Indian citizenship after acquiring citizenship of another country. In the case of minors, both parents' signatures are required. Surrender of Indian Passport, https://www.vfsglobal.com/one-pager/india/united-states-of- america/renunciation-of-indian-citizenship/ (last visited August 11, 2025). A-2247-23 3 issue of travel notification and consent, it provides a handwritten notation
initialized by both parties, which states: "The [w]ife shall hold the passport and
green [ ] card[.] [H]owever, she shall provide both to [h]usband upon request,
one week prior to travel. The [h]usband shall return the originals to the [w]ife."
Under the MSA, the parties also agreed that they would first attempt to resolve
any disputes "concerning any aspect of [the MSA]" between themselves. In the
event the parties were unable to reach a resolution, they agreed to engage in
mediation as per the terms of the MSA.
On January 15, 2021, the parties modified the MSA by consent order
(2021 Consent Order). Relevant to this appeal, the 2021 Consent Order provided
that the costs of the minor child's summer camp, dance, swimming, and either
piano or art extracurricular activities would be shared by the parties in
proportion to their respective incomes. Defendant agreed to provide plaintiff
with receipts for the extracurricular activities in order to receive reimbursement.
All other provisions of the MSA remained in effect. On June 7, 2021, an order
was entered modifying child support pursuant to the 2021 Consent Order.
In 2022 and 2023, the parties disagreed regarding the implementation of
the MSA and 2021 Consent Order concerning the minor child's travel and
citizenship documents. In early October 2023, defendant suggested the parties
A-2247-23 4 engage in mediation to resolve their disputed issues. Plaintiff alleged that
defendant acted in bad faith under both the MSA and 2021 Consent Order.
In October 2023, the parties exchanged emails regarding the documents
required to obtain the child's U.S. passport, renunciation of Indian citizenship,
and OCI, which required both parents' signatures.2 Defendant requested
additional information from plaintiff to complete the U.S. passport application.
Defendant also informed plaintiff that both parents were required to sign the
parental authorization form and sworn affidavit for the OCI and renunciation
cards. Defendant told plaintiff that the application fees had been paid and the
pending filing deadline for the application. Plaintiff, however, repeatedly asked
for copies of the documents and the minor child's passport, although no U.S.
passport or OCI card had been issued. Nor does the record reveal plaintiff
signed the renunciation document.
During that same month, defendant requested plaintiff's signature for the
minor child's Indian visa. On October 19, 2023, defendant notified plaintiff that
2 For a child to receive a U.S. passport, both parents are required to sign the DS-11 application, show their relationship to the child, and be present with the child when applying. If the parent cannot be present, a notarized and signed Statement of Consent must be submitted. U.S. Dep't of State, Apply for a Child's Passport Under [Sixteen], https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/under-16.html (last visited July 30, 2025); 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(a)(2). A-2247-23 5 she needed to travel to India due to a family emergency, as her mother was in
"critical" condition. Plaintiff acknowledged defendant's email and responded:
"[T]ake care." He also demanded that defendant provide a copy of the minor
child's passport before he signed her visa application.
Shortly thereafter, on October 28, plaintiff traveled to India due to an
emergent medical procedure performed on his father. In an email, plaintiff told
defendant that he would not be picking up the minor child for a "couple of
weeks."
Defendant left for India on November 3 and returned to the U.S. on
November 26. While defendant was in India, plaintiff asserts he received an
email on November 25 from the minor child's school nurse regarding the minor
child being "out of [the]country." Plaintiff emailed defendant asking if she and
the minor child were in India. If so, plaintiff requested that defendant take the
minor child to see his father while he could still recognize her. Plaintiff further
stated that if no response was received, he would file a complaint with the police.
Defendant stated that she messaged plaintiff through WhatsApp, a social media,
instant messaging, and voice-over-internet protocol service.
Plaintiff contends that he received no response, and the day after he
returned from India, he went to the police station. He also sent a text to
A-2247-23 6 defendant again asking about the minor child's whereabouts. On November 27,
defendant responded and confirmed the minor child was in school. Plaintiff
replied, alleging defendant took the child to Disney without his consent and in
violation of the MSA.
On Christmas Day, plaintiff sent an email to defendant again addressing
the minor child's numerous absences from school in November. He sent a
subsequent email to defendant, threatening court intervention, and alleging that
defendant violated the MSA by interfering with his parenting time. Specifically,
plaintiff claimed defendant did not allow plaintiff to speak with their minor child
for over a year and traveled abroad with the minor child without his consent.
In early January 2024, defendant emailed plaintiff regarding his
contribution toward the minor child's extracurricular activities and medical
expenses, as required by the 2021 Consent Order. Defendant also sought
reimbursement for expenses related to the minor child's U.S. citizen certificate,
Indian passport renewal and U.S. passport fees. Defendant also requested that
plaintiff provide a copy of his W-2 and attached receipts in accordance with the
MSA. Shortly thereafter, defendant's counsel notified plaintiff that he was in
violation of the MSA and obligated to mediate disputes concerning any aspect
of the MSA.
A-2247-23 7 In February 2024, plaintiff moved to modify the child custody designation
and sought primary custody of the minor child. He also sought a modification
(1) of parenting time by requiring defendant to obtain written consent to travel
with the child outside of the United States; (2) to cease reimbursement for the
child's extracurricular activities; (3) obtain all the minor child's travel
documents; and (4) to not engage in mediation.
Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to (1) deny plaintiff's
motion in its entirety; (2) compel mediation; (3) compel plaintiff's cooperation
with defendant in obtaining the minor child's renunciation, U.S. passport, and
OCI card; (4) update the minor child's probation account to reflect no payment
is owed by defendant; and (5) attorney's fees and costs.
In reply to defendant's cross-motion, plaintiff sought additional relief. He
requested that defendant pay for mediation and asserted that he should not be
required to share in the costs for the minor child's citizenship documents or
extracurricular activities. On March 14, 2024, the Family Part judge granted, in
part, and denied, in part, plaintiff's motion. The judge likewise granted, in part,
and denied, in part, defendant's cross-motion.
A-2247-23 8 II.
On appeal, plaintiff essentially reprises the arguments presented before
the Family Part judge. Defendant argues that the judge erred in requiring him
to purchase a cell phone to communicate with the minor child and mandates that
he pays for the recurring costs, which "ignores" the MSA and the joint custody
rights. Plaintiff next argues the judge misinterpreted his requested relief: (1) to
travel to India with the minor child during vacations or emergencies; and (2) to
direct defendant to inform him and obtain his consent before traveling with their
minor child. He contends the issue is his inability to access the minor child's
U.S. passport and obtain copies of the passport because the passport application
has been completed. Accordingly, plaintiff argues the judge failed to uphold the
joint custody principle and the MSA, which warrants reversal.
Plaintiff also contends that the March 14, 2024 order fails to enforce the
parties' agreements and the issues previously addressed during mediation.
Lastly, he argues the order is deficient because it fails to address the issues of
statute of limitations, waiver, and estoppel; compelling plaintiff to either share
costs for the minor child's passport, U.S. citizenship certification, OCI, and
renunciation or mediation.
A-2247-23 9 Our review of a Family Part judge's findings is limited. Gormley v.
Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2019). We "afford substantial
deference to the Family Part's findings of fact because of that court's special
expertise in family matters." W.M. v. D.G., 467 N.J. Super. 216, 229 (App. Div.
2021) (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)). "Under that
deferential standard of review, we are bound to uphold a finding that is
supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." Moynihan v. Lynch,
250 N.J. 60, 90 (2022).
An order to enforce litigant's rights under Rule 1:10-3 is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Wear v. Selective Ins. Co., 455 N.J. Super. 440, 458-59
(App. Div. 2018) (citing Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J. Super. 18, 46 (App. Div. 2011)).
"We will reverse only if we find the judge clearly abused his or her discretion[.]"
Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61, 72 (App. Div. 2012). We review issues of
law de novo, including issues arising in a custody dispute. R.K. v. F.K., 437
N.J. Super. 58, 61 (App. Div. 2014).
Matrimonial agreements "are essentially consensual and voluntary in
character and therefore entitled to considerable weight with respect to their
validity and enforceability notwithstanding the fact that such an agreement has
been incorporated in a judgment of divorce." Bermeo v. Bermeo, 457 N.J.
A-2247-23 10 Super. 77, 83 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting Petersen v. Petersen, 85 N.J. 638, 642
(1981)). "It is not the function of the court to rewrite or revise an agreement
when the intent of the parties is clear." Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34, 45 (2016)
(citing J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305, 326 (2013)). "Accordingly, MSAs should be
enforced so long as they are consensual, voluntary, conscionable, and not the
result of fraud or overreaching." Satz v. Satz, 476 N.J. Super. 536, 551 (App.
Div. 2023).
We first address plaintiff's argument that the judge erred in finding that
he requested a modification of his parenting time or schedule when he sought
enforcement of his once-daily, fifteen-minute telephone or video call with the
child. The record does not support plaintiff's argument.
In plaintiff's initial motion, he sought a change in the primary custody
designation of the child. If granted, he also proposed modifying visitation to
permit defendant to have overnights visits one or two nights per week. To
modify an order establishing custody or parenting time, whether temporary or
permanent, a party must first demonstrate there has been a change in
circumstances and that change is in the child's best interest to modify the
arrangement. R.K., 437 N.J. Super. at 62; Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102,
105 (App. Div. 2007). An existing custody order is presumed to "'embod[y] a
A-2247-23 11 best interests determination' and should be modified only where there is a
'showing [of] changed circumstances which would affect the welfare of the
children.'" A.J. v. R.J., 461 N.J. Super. 173, 182 (App. Div. 2019) (second
alteration in original) (quoting Todd v. Sheridan, 268 N.J. Super. 387, 398 (App.
Div. 1993)).
Here, plaintiff mischaracterizes the record. In his application, plaintiff
checked the boxes indicating that he was seeking a change in both custody and
parenting time. However, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a change in
circumstances sufficient to warrant modification from defendant to plaintiff as
the parent of primary custody.
The record reflects that plaintiff's request for relief was based upon the
provision of the MSA allowing for a fifteen-minute telephone or video call with
the minor child to be made once daily between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Additionally, plaintiff's application was primarily predicated on the acrimonious
relationship between the parties. The record further supports the Family Part
judge's findings that "neither party needs to serve as a conduit for a daily
telephone [call] of [fifteen] minutes between the [minor] child and the parent
not exercising parenting time."
A-2247-23 12 Plaintiff also misconstrues the provision of the order, which grants him
the option to purchase a cell phone should he wish to communicate with his
minor child once daily for fifteen minutes. Given the contentious nature of the
parties' co-parenting relationship, we discern no misapplication of the law or
abuse of discretion by the judge in crafting a remedy that serves the best interest
of the minor child. Specifically, the judge appropriately provided plaintiff with
the option to purchase a cell phone for the minor child if he wishes to facilitate
a once-daily, fifteen-minute call. Beck v. Beck, 86, N.J. 480, 486 (1981).
We likewise reject plaintiff's argument that he was obligated to pay the
monthly cell phone costs. Simply put, plaintiff has misread the judge's order.
The provision does not explicitly provide that plaintiff bears the sole
responsibility for the recurring costs of the cell phone. We conclude that the
judge properly determined that any expenses related to the cell phone should be
addressed through mediation in accordance with the MSA.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred in denying his request
regarding traveling with the minor child to India during her vacation or in case
of emergency and requiring defendant to obtain his written consent to travel with
the child out of the country. Plaintiff's argument lacks merit.
A-2247-23 13 We find no basis in the record to disturb the court's decision to refer the
travel issues with the child to mediation. While the MSA outlines the vacation
and parenting time schedule, it does not specifically address the requirements
for notifying the other parent about travel or obtaining consent from the other
parent not exercising parenting time. Nevertheless, this issue should be
addressed in mediation to "preserve the decision-making roles of both parents"
with joint legal custody. Costa v. Costa, 440 N.J. Super. 1, 6 (App. Div. 2015)
(quoting Beck, 86 N.J. at 500).
We are also convinced the judge properly exercised his discretion in
directing plaintiff to cooperate with defendant to execute the minor child's
citizenship documents. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the record does not
reveal the child's citizenship documents have been completed. Furthermore,
both the United States and India require both parents to sign an application for
issuance of U.S. citizenship documents, OCI, and renunciation. In other words,
the order directs plaintiff to comply with the applicable law.
Finally, we reject plaintiff's argument that the judge erroneously ruled the
shared costs for the minor child's citizenship's documents and extracurricular
activities reimbursement were subject to mediation, as it is beyond the
parameters of the MSA. The judge correctly determined the parties' MSA
A-2247-23 14 required them to first attempt mediation if they were unable to resolve any
disputes regarding MSA on their own. We are satisfied that he properly
interpreted the MSA in the context of the parties' disputed issues. There is no
evidence in the record to support plaintiff's argument that the issues had been
fully agreed upon by the parties and mediation was not required. Therefore,
plaintiff's request to deny mediation for the child's travel documents costs and
extracurricular activities reimbursement was properly denied.
Having reviewed the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in
enforcing the parties' MSA and 2021 Consent Order. To the extent we have not
addressed any arguments raised by plaintiff, they lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2247-23 15