Supreme Court Balances Child Welfare and Parental Rights in Custody Dispute

Background of the Case

Married in 2007, Ruhi and Nimish’s marriage produced a daughter in 2012. Post-separation, the mother retained sole custody of the child, serving as her primary caregiver. The Family Court had earlier granted limited visitation rights to the father, which he challenged in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court expanded the father’s visitation rights, introducing fortnightly physical meetings, shared vacation time, and video calls, while retaining sole custody with the mother.

The mother contested this revised arrangement in the Supreme Court, citing concerns over the child’s safety and emotional stability. She argued that the extended visitation schedule disrupted the child’s academic and extracurricular routine and highlighted allegations of abusive behavior and criminal charges against the father.

Supreme Court’s Interim Ruling

After hearing arguments from both parties, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Vikram Nath, issued an interim order to balance the child’s welfare with the father’s right to maintain a meaningful relationship. The Court ruled that expanded visitation rights could continue but introduced safety measures to address the mother’s concerns.

Key Provisions of the Interim Visitation Order

Video Conferencing: The father or grandparents are allowed to engage with the child via video conferencing for one hour every Saturday and Sunday, and for 5–10 minutes on other days.

Physical Meetings: On a fortnightly basis, the father may spend an entire day with the child. The mother must produce the child before the Family Court in Durg in the morning, where custody will temporarily transfer to the father and revert in the evening.

Vacation Time: During long vacations exceeding two weeks, the child can spend a day with the father or grandparents from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM.

Presence of Court-Appointed Commissioner: The Court mandated the presence of a female court-appointed commissioner during physical meetings and vacation visits. The visits must occur in public places to ensure the child’s safety and emotional comfort.Arguments and Concerns

The mother emphasized her fears for the child’s safety due to the father’s alleged abusive behavior and insisted on her presence during visitations. Conversely, the father argued that the mother was manipulating the child and influencing her opinions, thereby hindering his attempts to rebuild their relationship. He maintained that the expanded visitation schedule was essential for fostering a meaningful bond with his daughter.

The Supreme Court recognized the severity of the allegations but refrained from making determinations on their merits, as related cases remain pending. Instead, the Court focused on crafting an arrangement prioritizing the child’s welfare while respecting both parents’ rights.

Observations and Recommendations

The Court highlighted the importance of mutual respect and cooperation between the parents to ensure a nurturing environment for the child. Justice Nath noted that parents must prioritize the child’s well-being over their personal differences and legal battles. The presence of a court-appointed commissioner was seen as a necessary safeguard to alleviate the mother’s concerns without impeding the father’s rights.

The Court also emphasized the need for flexible and cooperative arrangements, reminding both parents of their shared responsibility in ensuring the child’s stability and happiness.

Future Proceedings

The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for two months later. During this period, the interim visitation arrangement will remain in effect. The Family Court in Durg has been instructed to appoint the commissioner within four weeks to oversee the implementation of these orders.