The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale modified the interim visitation arrangements concerning a minor child involved in a custody dispute between her estranged parents. The Court emphasized that the child’s health and well-being must take precedence over the visitation rights of the parents, while partly allowing the appeal against the decision of the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench.

The appellant and respondent, both doctors, were married on September 9, 2021, and had a daughter on June 6, 2022. Shortly after the child’s birth, the appellant filed for divorce in June 2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and domestic violence by the respondent. Simultaneously, the respondent sought interim visitation rights under Section 26 of the Act, which the Family Court granted. This required the appellant to travel 150 kilometers from her residence in Madurai to Karur every Sunday, to facilitate the respondent’s visitation with the child. The appellant challenged this order before the Madras High Court, arguing that such frequent and long-distance travel would harm the child’s health, particularly given her tender age.

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea but extended the visitation duration to four hours every Sunday, emphasizing the father’s rights as a natural guardian. Disappointed by the parties’ inability to reconcile, the Court remarked that the father’s anguish over missing his child’s early years justified the travel and interaction arrangement.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view, focusing on the welfare of the minor child. In its judgment, the Bench observed:

“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 Court noted that the earlier orders failed to provide cogent reasons for mandating the visitation at Karur. It remarked:

“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 appear to have kept the best interest and welfare of the child as paramount.”

Recognizing the logistical burden and health implications of traveling 300 kilometers weekly, the Supreme Court revised the visitation arrangement to take place in Madurai. The Bench acknowledged the father’s right to have access to his child but clarified that such rights must align with the minor’s welfare. It stated:

“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... is sound and fair, the same cannot override the interest of the child.”

Case Details: Sugirtha v. Gowtham SLP (C) NO. 18240 OF 2024