Last Updated:
The court said children must stay connected with both parents even across borders, while granting a father regular virtual visitation rights with his 9-year-old son in Ireland
The bench observed that denying such contact would deprive the child of the love, guidance, and emotional support of the father. (PTI)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that every child has the right to the affection of both parents, even if they live separately or in different countries, and emphasised the importance of maintaining the child’s bond with both.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the plea of a father seeking video interaction with his 9-year-old son, currently residing in Ireland with his estranged mother. The court found the request to be reasonable and directed that regular video interactions must be facilitated. The bench observed that denying such contact would deprive the child of the love, guidance, and emotional support of the father, which are essential to a child’s overall development.
Recommended Stories
The court said the arrangement balances the reality of the child’s present living situation with the need to ensure that the father continues to be part of his life. Stressing that the case concerned the future of a young child, the bench observed that when such disputes arise, the question is not about who is right or wrong between the parents but what arrangement will serve the best interest of the child. The judges reiterated that the emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the child must remain the foremost consideration.
The bench noted that the conduct of both parents had not been ideal and that their personal differences had escalated into a long and bitter conflict. However, the court said the child could not be allowed to become a casualty of this conflict and what mattered most was that he grew up in an atmosphere where he felt secure, loved, and cared for. It was recorded that the child appeared to be settled with his mother in Ireland, and disturbing that arrangement at this stage would not be in his interest. At the same time, the bench noted that the father had only sought regular interaction through video conferencing and not custody, which made the request reasonable in the circumstances.
As per the case record, the couple married in 2012 and their son was born in 2016. In 2017, the mother left the matrimonial home and subsequently filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In 2018, the father initiated custody proceedings before the Family Court. In 2019, the Family Court allowed him to meet the child twice a month on Fridays at the child’s school. Later that year, the parties attempted a settlement, but it did not succeed. On a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Family Court in 2022 granted interim custody to the father on Saturdays and Sundays, with the condition that the child would not be taken out of Rohtak, Haryana. In 2023, the Family Court dismissed his custody petition, citing violation of the interim order.
The father approached the High Court, but meanwhile the mother took the child to Ireland. The father filed several applications, including requests for disclosure of the child’s travel details, video interaction, and the return of the child to India. On October 4, 2024, the High Court dismissed his appeal, holding that the child had been living with his mother since August 2017 and that no material had been produced to show she was incapable of caring for him.
Challenging this order, the father moved the Supreme Court. The apex court directed that he would be entitled to interact with his son through video conferencing for two hours every alternate Sunday from 10am to 12 noon Ireland time. The court further directed both parents to cooperate in ensuring the smooth conduct of these sessions in good faith, without obstruction or hostility. The bench made it clear that any technical or logistical difficulties in arranging the video interactions should be resolved mutually, with the paramount consideration being the welfare of the child.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl…Read More
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl… Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
