Child Has Right To Affection Of Both Parents: Supreme Court Allows Father’s Request To Interact With Minor Son Living Abroad Through Video-Conferencing
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a father seeking visitation rights through video conferencing in the custody dispute with the mother of the child.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has come to the aid of a father by allowing his request to interact with his minor son, living in Ireland, through video conferencing. The Apex Court held that every child has a right to the affection of both parents.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant is a father who approached the Court seeking video interaction with his minor son.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Every child has a right to the affection of both parents. Even if parents live apart or in different countries, it is important for the child to maintain a relationship with both of them. Denying such contact would deprive the child of the love, guidance, and emotional support of the father.”
Factual Background
The appellant and the Respondent got married in 2012, and their son was born in the year 2016. In 2017, the respondent-mother left the matrimonial home. She subsequently filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551. The appellant initiated proceedings before the Family Court seeking custody of the minor child, and the Family Court permitted the appellant to meet the child twice a month at the child’s school. The appellant then instituted a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody, and by an interim order, he was granted custody every Saturday and Sunday. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the interim order.
During the pendency of the appellant’s appeal, the respondent-mother took the child to Ireland. The appellant thereafter filed several applications for disclosure of the child’s travel itinerary, arrangement of video interaction with the child, and the return of the child from Ireland to India. The appellant filed an application for early hearing of his main appeal before the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal by relying upon the Apex Court’s dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petition and held that the child had been living with the respondent-mother since August 18, 2017, and no material was placed to show that she was incapable of caring for the child. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court pressing the appeal only to the extent of securing visitation rights through videoconferencing.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, took note of the sensitivity of the matter concerning the future of a young child. “When such disputes arise, the central question is not who is right or wrong as between the parents, but what arrangement will best serve the child. The emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the child must always come first”, it stated. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the conduct of both parents had not been ideal. Their personal differences grew into a long and bitter conflict. “However, the Court cannot allow the child to become a casualty of this conflict. What matters most is that the child grows up in an atmosphere where he feels secure, loved, and cared for”, it added.
Considering that the child has been living with his mother in Ireland and seems to be settled there, the Bench held that it would not be in his interest to disturb that arrangement at this stage. As per the Bench, the father’s request seeking a chance to interact with his son regularly through video-conferencing was fair. “We are therefore of the view that the appellant’s request for video interaction is reasonable. It balances the reality of the child’s present living situation with the need to ensure that the father remains a part of the child’s life”, it held.
Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to interact with his son through video-conferencing for two hours on every alternate Sunday. “Both parties shall cooperate to ensure that the arrangement is carried out smoothly, in good faith, without obstruction or hostility”, it concluded.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1068)