In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that a father’s right to visit his child cannot supersede the child’s health and well-being. Highlighting the paramount importance of the child’s best interests, the apex court modified interim visitation arrangements in a custody battle, ensuring the child’s health is not compromised.
The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale, observed, “The interest of the minor child is paramount. In the process of adjudicating upon the rights of the parents, her health cannot be compromised. Further, while the respondent has the right to visit the child, it cannot be at the cost of the child’s health and well-being.”
The case concerned a young girl caught in a custody dispute between her estranged parents, both doctors, who resided 150 kilometers apart in Madurai and Karur. The Madras High Court had previously directed the mother to bring the child to Karur every Sunday for four hours, facilitating the father’s visitation rights. However, the child’s mother challenged the order, citing the physical strain on the child and raising concerns over the father’s history of violence and lack of prior involvement in the child’s life.
Acknowledging these concerns, the Supreme Court modified the arrangement, allowing the father to meet the child in Madurai, where the mother and child lived. The court directed that the father could visit his daughter every Sunday for four hours at a public park or temple in Madurai, with the mother maintaining a safe distance.
The Bench remarked, “While the observation of the High Court that the father being the natural guardian cannot be denied of the care and custody of the child and that his agony of missing his child’s childhood cannot be prolonged, is sound and fair, the same cannot override the interest of the child.”
The court criticized the family court and the High Court for failing to adequately consider the child’s best interests and creating an unnecessarily burdensome visitation arrangement. It noted, “The directions passed by the High Court as well as the Family Court are not supported by any cogent reasons for allowing the visitation to take place at Karur. These orders do not provide any justified reasons and do not appear to have kept the best interest and welfare of the child as paramount.”
Case: Sugirtha vs Gowtham – Available on LAWFYI.IO
