‘Child Not Mature Enough To Decide’: SC Allows Man To Meet 11-Year-Old Son, Raps Ex-Wife For Trying To Block Visitation
Pending resolution, the court ruled that the father could meet his son every Sunday from 4 pm to 6 pm, with the child’s caretaker present
The Supreme Court on March 18 allowed a father to meet his 11-year-old son despite the child expressing distress over these visits and a reluctance to continue them. The court also criticised the mother for attempting to obstruct the father’s visitation rights, which had been granted through a consent decree.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasised that the matter concerned a minor child who had yet to attain maturity, making it imperative for the court to determine what was in his best interest. “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," the bench observed.
related stories
The couple married under Hindu rites on April 15, 2012, and their son was born on August 11, 2014. However, disputes arose, leading to their separation. The mother retained physical custody of the child, and the couple filed for divorce and custody arrangements under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Hyderabad family court. The court granted a divorce on September 2, 2021, awarding permanent custody to the mother while allowing the father interim custody on weekends.
Despite initial adherence to this arrangement, the father alleged that in 2021, the mother unilaterally stopped all contact between him and their son. In response, he filed an execution petition on February 6, 2023, requesting an advocate commissioner to enforce the 2021 decree. The family court ordered the mother to facilitate weekend visits and daily video calls, but these orders were soon disregarded.
On January 19, 2024, the family court upheld the father’s petition and appointed an advocate commissioner to ensure compliance. However, the high court, on March 13, 2024, overturned this decision, directing the family court to reconsider the matter within a month.
Challenging the high court’s ruling, the father argued that both parents’ involvement was crucial for the child’s well-being. His counsel contended that the child’s initial fondness for his father had changed due to the mother’s influence. Conversely, the mother’s counsel asserted that the father’s lack of engagement during visits had left the child feeling neglected and traumatised.
After reviewing the case, the bench noted, “The picture that emerges, were we to attempt to conjure one, taking a gist of the additional material in its entirety, is that the minor son of the parties, during interactions several times with the courts, has stated that he was disinclined to even meet/visit the father and did not want to remain with him physically because of the appellant-father not giving him sufficient time/attention."
Citing precedents like Nil Ratan Kundu (2008), Nithya Anand Raghavan (2017), and Yashita Sahu (2020), the court reaffirmed the paramountcy of the child’s best interests in custody disputes. It acknowledged the mother’s efforts to hinder visitation but refrained from immediate enforcement of the decree, opting for a fresh judicial examination.
Pending resolution, the court ruled that the father could meet his son every Sunday from 4 pm to 6 pm, with the child’s caretaker present. The case was remanded for expedited resolution within three months, with the court warning of coercive measures if the mother impeded the arrangement.
- Location :
- First Published: