The Orissa High Court has held that a child cannot be deprived of the love and affection of either parent, setting aside a Cuttack family court’s order that denied visitation rights to a father seeking to meet his two-year-old son.
A bench of Justice [Name not specified] observed that even when custody lies with one parent, the other must have reasonable access, noting that “a father who has been consistently approaching courts to see his son cannot be presumed to be a threat to him or his mother.”
The couple married in April 2021 and had a son in December 2023. The child has been residing with the mother since the couple’s separation. When the father approached the Cuttack family court seeking visitation, his plea was rejected on the ground that it could pose a “threat” to the mother and child.
The father then filed a writ petition before the high court challenging the family court’s decision.
The high court criticised the reasoning of the family court as “perverse and contrary to settled law.” It noted that the alleged incidents cited by the mother occurred nearly two years ago and that no fresh material had been produced to show any ongoing threat.
Quoting from the judgment, the court said:
“A father, desperate to see his child and pursuing legal remedies rather than resorting to unlawful means, cannot be assumed to pose harm to his son or wife.”
The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yashita Sahu vs State of Rajasthan (2020), which affirmed that in custody matters, the welfare of the child must remain the “paramount consideration.”
Allowing the father’s plea, the court directed supervised visitation twice a month at the High Court Mediation Centre in Cuttack. It permitted the father and the child’s grandparents to meet the boy for two hours on scheduled dates and to speak to him via video call every alternate weekend.
The court further emphasised the role of grandparents in a child’s upbringing:
“In a custody battle, there can’t be a straitjacket formula to be followed. In Indian society, grandparents form an integral part in the upbringing of children, and that part of affection and contribution cannot be ignored or shelved.”
Calling the grandparents “an ancillary part and parcel of the family,” the court also directed that ₹2,000 be paid for each visitation to cover travel expenses.
