Mutual respect, collaboration essential for child’s well-being, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has underscored that that mutual respect and collaboration were essential for a child’s well-being as it declined a plea by a woman to allow her to be present during visitation meetings of her husband with their 13-year-old daughter.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale, however, appointed a female court commissioner to be present during the meeting of the girl with the father.

"We understand the concerns of a mother of a teenage daughter, especially one who has made serious allegations against her husband. Thus, as urged by her that the safety of the child be ensured and as suggested by the respondent-father, we deem it appropriate that a court appointed commissioner, who should be a female, should be present at all times during the visitation meetings," the bench said.

The court felt such an arrangement strikes a fair balance between the child’s need for stability, her safety and welfare, and the respondent’s right to meaningful involvement in the child’s life.

It modified the Chhattisgarh High Court's order on a plea by a woman, who was aggrieved with the certain, specified visitation rights to the respondent-father in his appeal against dismissal of his petition seeking custody of the child before the Family Court, Durg.

Allowing visitation rights to respondent-father during the pendency of the matter, the bench opined the weeklong and overnight stays cannot be allowed for now.

"Both the parties have made severe allegation against each other to bring forth their individual concerns for the physical safety and mental wellbeing of the child while in the company of the opposite parent, we will not go into the merits of these allegations as several cases are still pending between the parties and we are yet to hear the petition on merits. But, keeping the safety and welfare of the child as paramount, we believe that these submissions cannot be taken lightly," the bench said.

In her plea, the woman submitted she should be allowed to be present during the meetings to ensure the child’s safety.

The respondent-father contested against such arrangement on the grounds that she tends to control the child and thus does not allow the visits to go smoothly and without interruption.

The bench, which appointed court appointed commissioner to be present during the meetings, said, "We find no reason to not allow the visitation rights to continue in the interim."

Before scheduling the matter for hearing after two months, the bench reminded both the parents of their duty to prioritise the child’s welfare and work collaboratively to create a nurturing and supportive environment for the child.

The parties got married in 2007 and a daughter was born in 2012. Following the separation in 2016, the child resided with the mother who has been the primary caregiver and custodian.

She claimed to have provided a stable, nurturing environment conducive to the child’s emotional, educational, and overall well-being.

The respondent-father maintained that he has the intention and willingness to actively contribute to the child’s upbringing and sought a greater role in shaping the child’s life.

The woman, however, alleged history of abusive behavior, criminal charges, and past incidents of conflict during visitation, to contend the expanded schedule of visitation was inappropriate and unsafe for the child.

The respondent-father, on the other hand, contended the petitioner has manipulated the child and influenced her views, limiting his ability to build a relationship. He claimed that the revised schedule allowed him to strengthen his bond with the child, which is essential for her overall development.