Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has emphasised the need for both parents to cooperate and communicate effectively to ensure the smooth implementation of the visitation arrangement in a child custody matter, saying mutual respect and collaboration are essential for the child’s well-being.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale refused a plea by a woman to allow her to be present during the visitation meetings of 13-year-old daughter with her father that will take place during the pendency of this petition.

"But we understand the concerns of a mother of a teenage daughter, especially one who has made serious allegations against her husband. Thus, as urged by her that the safety of the child be ensured and as suggested by the respondent, we deem it appropriate that a court appointed commissioner, who should be a female, should be present at all times during the visitation meetings," the bench said.

The court felt such an arrangement strikes a fair balance between the child’s need for stability, her safety and welfare, and the respondent’s right to meaningful involvement in the child’s life.

"Both parents are reminded of their duty to prioritise the child’s welfare and work collaboratively to create a nurturing and supportive environment for the child," the bench said.

The woman challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court's order of May 11, 2022, granting certain, specified visitation rights to the respondent – father in his appeal against dismissal of his petition seeking custody of the child before the Family Court, Durg.

Petitioner and respondent were married on January 16, 2007 and out of this wedlock, the daughter was born in 2012.

During the separation between the parties since 2016, the child has resided with the mother who has been the primary caregiver and custodian. She claimed to have provided a stable, nurturing environment conducive to the child’s emotional, educational, and overall well-being. On the other hand, the respondent father has consistently maintained that he has the intention and willingness to actively contributed to the child’s upbringing and seeks a greater role in shaping the child’s life.

The Family Court granted sole custody of the child to the mother and the respondent was awarded limited visitation rights—restricted to one and a half hours on the first Sunday of every month and certain holidays.

Aggrieved by the limited visitation rights, the respondent appealed to the High Court, seeking joint custody or an extended visitation schedule.

The High Court, after a comprehensive review of the evidence, agreed to retain sole custody with the mother but expanded the father's visitation rights. It allowed longer meeting hours, physical meetings on a fortnight basis, shared vacation time, and regular video calls to promote a meaningful bond between the father and the child.

Citing concerns about the child’s safety and emotional stability, the mother approached the Supreme Court. She contended extended visitation schedule disrupts the child’s routine and could negatively impact her academic performance and extracurricular activities.

She also highlighted the respondent's alleged history of abusive behavior, criminal charges, and past incidents of conflict during visitation, asserting that these factors make the expanded schedule inappropriate and unsafe for the child.

Conversely, the respondent father defended the High Court’s ruling, asserting that the expanded visitation arrangement is in the child’s best interest. He claimed that the mother has manipulated the child and influenced her views, limiting his ability to build a relationship. He argued that the revised schedule allowed him to strengthen his bond with the child, which is essential for her overall development.

While keeping the issue as open, the respondent father urged for an interim arrangement to be made in order to enable him to exercise certain visitation rights, meet his daughter, and redevelop the bond that has strained over time.

Allowing interim visitation rights to respondent during the pendency of the petition, the bench said, the weeklong and overnight stays cannot be allowed in the interim.

"Since both the parties have made severe allegation against each other to bring forth their individual concerns for the physical safety and mental wellbeing of the child while in the company of the opposite parent, we will not go into the merits of these allegations as several cases are still pending between the parties and we are yet to hear the petition on merits. But, keeping the safety and welfare of the child as paramount, we believe that these submissions cannot be taken lightly," the bench said.

The mother urged that she should be allowed to be present during the meetings to ensure the child’s safety, whereas the respondent father has contested against such arrangement on the grounds that she tends to control the child and thus does not allow the visits to go smoothly and without interruption.

In view of her concerns, the court appointed court appointed commissioner to be present during the meetings.

"We find no reason to not allow the visitation rights to continue in the interim," the bench said, listing the petition for consideration after two months.