Minor Child Can’t Decide What Is Best for Him: Supreme Court Grants Father Visitation Rights; Takes Note Of Mother’s Conduct In Obstructing It

The Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred by the Appellant against the Final Judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court by which the appeal filed by the Respondent had been allowed thereby setting aside the order of the Principal Family Court in Execution Petition and remanding the matter to the Family Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah ordered, “...in the present lis, the issue relates to the life of a minor child who has still not attained maturity himself and is not in a position to decide what is best for him. Thus, the responsibility for him is also on the Court which is seized of the matter. The Court has to be extremely careful in taking a considered view, such that the interests of the minor child are adequately safeguarded.”

AOR Raavi Yogesh Venkata represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellant-father and the Respondent-mother were married as per Hindu rites and rituals in 2012 and a male child was born to the couple in the year 2024. Disputes arose between the parties that ultimately led to them living separately. During this time, the Respondent mother had the physical custody of their minor son. The parties filed a Petition under Sections 13-B and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Family Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The Respondent-mother was granted permanent custody of the minor son, and the Appellant-father was given interim custody during the weekends.

The Appellant alleged that, sometime in 2021, the Respondent terminated all contact between the son and the Appellant-father, despite several efforts on his part. Thus, the Appellant was compelled to file an Execution Petition seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to implement the Divorce Decree. The Family Court passed an Order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to execute the Decree. When the matter reached the High Court, the respondent’s appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Family Court. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case and the submissions presented, the Bench found that the minor son of the parties during interactions, several times with the Courts, stated that he was disinclined to meet/visit the father and did not want to remain with him physically because of the Appellant-father was not giving him sufficient time/attention. “There is a lot to be said about the conduct of the Respondent mother who clearly attempts to prevent/obstruct/stop the visitation rights granted to the Appellant-father, that too pursuant to a consent decree between the parties”, the Bench said while also noting that the issue related to the life of a minor child who had still not attained maturity himself and was not in a position to decide what was best for him.

The Bench also observed, “We were seriously contemplating to direct immediate compliance with the already existing decree before the Respondent’s petition for modification of the original decree was heard and decided. However, being conscious of the fact that we are also in the parens patriae jurisdiction, and even interim arrangements could have a negative effect on the tender and fragile frame of the mind of the minor son, we ultimately find that the matter needs fresh consideration. The Impugned Judgment is thus, not interdicted. However, we hasten to add that during the interregnum period, the father cannot be totally deprived of the company of the minor son.”

Granting the father visitation rights every Sunday for 2 hours from 4 pm to 6 pm, the Bench directed that the son would go with his caretaker to the house of the Appellant-father, where the caretaker would remain present in the premises, but not in the immediate company of the Appellant-father or the family members of the Appellant or the minor son.

The Bench disposed of the Appeal by remanding the matter back to the Family Court with a direction to conclude the matter expeditiously and latest within three months.

Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 358)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Raavi Yogesh Venkata, Advocates Twinkle Rathi, Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, AOR Nikhil Parikshith, AOR Abhishek Gautam, Advocates Karan Kapur, Abhik Chimni, Aparajita Jamwal, Vikramaditya Chouhan

Click here to read/download Judgment