The Supreme Court has underscored the importance of mutual respect and effective communication between parents to ensure the smooth implementation of visitation arrangements in child custody cases, emphasizing that both cooperation and collaboration are key to promoting the well-being of the child.

In a recent case, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale rejected a woman’s request to be present during her 13-year-old daughter’s visitation meetings with her father, which are set to occur while the case is pending.

However, the bench acknowledged the mother's concerns, particularly given the serious allegations she had made against her husband. As a result, the court decided that a female court-appointed commissioner should be present at all times during the visitation meetings to ensure the child's safety.

The court aimed to strike a fair balance between the child’s need for stability and safety, the father's right to engage meaningfully in her life, and the overall welfare of the child. The bench reminded both parents of their duty to prioritize the child’s welfare and to work collaboratively to create a supportive environment for her.

The woman had challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s May 11, 2022, order, which granted the father certain visitation rights following his appeal against the Family Court’s dismissal of his custody petition. The couple married in 2007, and their daughter was born in 2012. Since their separation in 2016, the child has lived with her mother, who has been the primary caregiver.

While the mother has provided a stable and nurturing environment for the child, the father has expressed a desire to play a more active role in her upbringing. Initially, the Family Court granted the mother sole custody and limited the father's visitation rights to one and a half hours on the first Sunday of every month and some holidays. Dissatisfied with this arrangement, the father appealed to the High Court, seeking either joint custody or an expanded visitation schedule.

The High Court, after reviewing the case, maintained the mother’s sole custody but allowed an expanded visitation schedule for the father. This included longer meetings, visits every other week, shared vacation time, and regular video calls to help foster a meaningful bond between the father and daughter.

Concerned about the potential disruption to the child’s routine and her emotional stability, the mother approached the Supreme Court.

She argued that the extended visitation could negatively affect the child’s academic performance and extracurricular activities, especially given the father’s alleged history of abusive behavior and criminal charges.

On the other hand, the father defended the High Court’s decision, arguing that the expanded schedule was in the child’s best interest and would help rebuild his relationship with her. He accused the mother of manipulating the child to limit his involvement.

The Supreme Court, while considering the interim arrangement, allowed the father to exercise limited visitation rights during the petition’s pendency. However, it ruled out extended or overnight stays for now. The court acknowledged the serious allegations made by both parties but refrained from delving into the merits of these claims, given that several cases were still pending.

In response to the mother's concerns about the child’s safety during visits, the court appointed a female commissioner to be present at all times. The bench concluded that, despite the ongoing dispute, there was no reason to suspend the father’s visitation rights, listing the petition for further consideration in two months.