The Appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the Judgment of the Telangana High Court remanding the matter to the Family Court.
Observing the mother’s efforts to hinder the father’s visitation rights and acknowledging that the minor child was unable to determine what was in his best interest, the Supreme Court instructed the father to meet his 11-year-old son every Sunday for two hours.
The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench ruling, which had upheld the respondent’s appeal, overturning the Principal Family Court’s order in the 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.”
Factual Background
The appellant-father and respondent-mother were married in 2012 following Hindu rites and rituals and had a son in 2024. Disputes later emerged between them, resulting in their separation, during which the respondent-mother retained physical custody of their minor son. They jointly filed a petition under Sections 13-B and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Family Court granted a mutual consent divorce. Permanent custody of the child was awarded to the respondent-mother, while the appellant-father was granted interim custody on weekends.
The appellant alleged that in 2021, the respondent completely severed his contact with their son, despite his repeated efforts to maintain a relationship. Consequently, he filed an Execution Petition, requesting the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to enforce the Divorce Decree. The Family Court approved the request and appointed an Advocate Commissioner for execution. However, upon appeal, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent and remanded the case to the Family Court. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant challenged it before the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
After examining the case facts and submissions, the Bench noted that during multiple interactions with the courts, the minor son consistently expressed unwillingness to meet or visit his father. He stated that he did not wish to stay with him, citing a perceived lack of time and attention from the appellant-father “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 highlighted that the case involved the well-being of a minor child who had not yet reached maturity and was incapable of making decisions in his best interest.
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.”
The Bench granted the father visitation rights every Sunday from 4 PM to 6 PM and instructed that the child be accompanied by his caretaker to the appellant-father’s residence. The caretaker was required to stay on the premises but not in the immediate vicinity of the appellant-father, his family members, or the minor son.
The Bench disposed of the appeal by remanding the case to the Family Court, directing it to expedite the proceedings and conclude them within a maximum of three months.
