"We Understand Concerns Of A Mother Of A Teenage Daughter": SC Orders Court Appointed Female Commissioner To Be Present During Father’s Visitation Meetings

The petition before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court granting specified visitation rights to the respondent – father in his appeal against the dismissal of his petition seeking custody of the child before the Family Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale asserted, “Both parents are reminded of their duty to prioritize the child’s welfare and work collaboratively to create a nurturing and supportive environment for the child.”

Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Petitioner no.1 and respondent got married in the year 2007 and out of this wedlock, petitioner no. 2 – daughter was born. The primary subject of contention is the custody and welfare of their 13-year-old child. During the separation between the parties, the child has resided with the petitioner-mother, who has been the primary caregiver and custodian. The Family Court granted sole custody of the child to the mother and the respondent-father 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 agreed to retain sole custody with the petitioner but expanded the respondent’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. The Petitioner challenged this modified arrangement before the Apex Court, citing concerns about the child’s safety and emotional stability.

Arguments

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

The respondent defended the High Court’s ruling, asserting that the expanded visitation arrangement is in the child’s best interest. He claimed that the petitioner had manipulated the child and influenced her views, limiting his ability to build a relationship.

Reasoning

Emphasizing the need for both parents to cooperate and communicate effectively to ensure the smooth implementation of the visitation arrangement, the Bench said, “Mutual respect and collaboration are essential for the child’s well-being.” The Bench took note of the fact that both parties made severe allegations against each other to bring forth their concerns for the physical safety and mental well-being of the child while in the company of the opposite parent. “But, keeping the safety and welfare of the child as paramount, we believe that these submissions cannot be taken lightly”, it added.

Though the Bench didn’t allow the petitioner to be present during the visitation meetings however, it also said, “ …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 petitioner no.1 that the safety of the child be ensured and as suggested by the respondent, we deem it appropriate that a Court appointed Commissioner, who shall be a female, shall be present at all times during the visitation meetings.”

Thus, modifying the interim visitation rights, the Bench ordered the female court Commissioner to be appointed by the Family Court within four weeks.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 99)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, AOR Ananta Prasad Mishra

Respondent: Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy, Advocates Sanchit Guru, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, AOR Himanshu Shekhar

Click here to read/download Judgement