Father's right to visit child cannot be at cost of child’s health and well-being: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that in child custody cases, a father's right to visit his child cannot be enforced at the cost of the child's health and well-being.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale made the observation while altering interim visitation arrangements made with respect to a child caught in a custody battle between her estranged parents.

The Madras High Court had earlier ordered the child's mother to bring the child from Madurai to Karur every week so that the father may interact with the child for four hours each Sunday. The mother challenged this order, stating that it affected the child's health.

The Supreme Court modified this arrangement by asking the father to meet his daughter in Madurai instead, where the mother and daughter resided.

"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 wellbeing," the Court said.

The child's parents had married in 2021, about a year before she was born. The child's mother moved a plea for divorce in 2023, accusing her husband of cruelty and domestic violence.

The husband then moved a plea before the family court seeking visitation rights while the divorce proceedings were pending. The family court allowed this plea and ordered his estranged wife (the child's mother) to bring the child to Karur (where the child's father resided) every Sunday for two hours.

Dissatisfied with this arrangement, the child's mother appealed to the Madras High Court, arguing that the 150 kilometer distance from her residence in Madurai to Karur, coupled with the child's young age, would negatively impact the child's health. She also raised concerns regarding her estranged husband's history of violence and his lack of prior involvement in the child’s life.

The High Court held that the man, being a natural guardian, was entitled to visitation rights. The High Court also modified the family court's order to allow four-hour visits every Sunday.

The child's mother subsequently approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court's order did not adequately consider the child's best interests.

The Supreme Court noted that both parents, being doctors, lived in separate cities (Madurai and Karur) approximately 150 kilometers apart.

It too recognized the father's right to visit his child, but emphasized that such rights must not come at the expense of the child’s health and well-being.

"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, but the same cannot override the interest of the child," the top court said.

It added that the family court and the High Court failed to prioritize the minor child’s best interests and made the visitation arrangement unnecessarily burdensome for the child.

"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. Thus, keeping the interest and well being of the child as the priority, we deem it appropriate and just to move the place of visitation from Karur to Madurai," the Supreme Court added.

Accordingly, it shifted the visitation location from Karur to Madurai. It directed that the father could visit the child every Sunday for four hours at a public park or temple in Madurai, with the mother present at a safe distance.

[Read Order]