Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1068
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11332 OF 2025
(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO. 25029 OF 2025
@ Diary No(s).60690 OF 2024)
MANOJ DHANKAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEEHARIKA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the order dated
04.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2655 of
2023. The appellant is the father of the minor
son, aged about 9 years. Respondent No. 1 is the
mother of the child, and Respondents No. 2 and
3 are her parents.
3. The background of the case reveals a long-
standing matrimonial and custody dispute
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.09.02
18:26:21 IST
Reason:
between the parties.
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 1 of 7
3.1. The appellant and Respondent No. 1 were
married on 26.11.2012. Their son was born on
18.01.2016.
3.2. In 2017, the respondent-mother left the
matrimonial home. She subsequently filed a
petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia)
1
and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
3.3. In 2018, the appellant initiated proceedings
before the Family Court seeking custody of the
minor child.
3.4. By order dated 19.03.2019, the Family Court
partially allowed the application and permitted
the appellant to meet the child twice a month,
on Fridays, at the child’s school.
3.5. The parties thereafter attempted a settlement,
as the respondent-mother intended to travel to
Ireland. They jointly filed for divorce by mutual
consent and withdrew the earlier petitions. The
first motion under Section 13-B of the HMA
was recorded on 28.08.2019 along with an
agreement regarding custody of the child.
3.6. However, the compromise fell through, and the
mutual consent petition was withdrawn.
1
For short “HMA”
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 2 of 7
3.7. The appellant then instituted a petition under
Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 seeking custody.
3.8. By interim order dated 03.02.2022, the Family
Court granted the appellant custody every
Saturday and Sunday, subject to the condition
that the child would not be taken out of
Rohtak, Haryana.
3.9. By final order dated 27.03.2023, the Family
Court dismissed the petition on the ground
that the appellant had violated the terms of the
interim order dated 03.02.2022. The appellant
challenged this decision before the High Court
in FAO No. 2655 of 2023.
3.10. During the pendency of that appeal, the
respondent-mother took the child to Ireland.
3.11. The appellant thereafter filed several
applications in FAO No. 2655 of 2023. One was
for disclosure of the child’s travel itinerary,
which he later withdrew. Another sought
disclosure of the itinerary, arrangement of
video interaction with the child, and the return
of the child from Ireland to India.
3.12. By order dated 25.07.2023, the High Court
issued notice only to the extent of disclosure of
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 3 of 7
the child’s itinerary. That order was challenged
before this Court, but the Special Leave
Petition was dismissed. The appellant then
filed an application for early hearing of his
main appeal before the High Court.
3.13. By the impugned order dated 04.10.2024, the
High Court dismissed the appeal. It relied on
this Court’s dismissal of the earlier Special
Leave Petition, noted the appellant’s breach of
the Family Court’s interim custody
arrangement, and held that the child had been
living with the respondent-mother since
18.08.2017 and no material was placed to
show that she was incapable of caring for the
child.
3.14. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has
approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
5. Before this Court, the appellant’s senior counsel
has pressed the appeal only to the extent of
securing visitation rights through video-
conferencing.
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 4 of 7
6. The present matter is sensitive because it
concerns the future of a young child. When such
disputes arise, the central question is not who is
right or wrong as between the parents, but what
arrangement will best serve the child. The
emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the
child must always come first.
7. It is also clear to us that the conduct of both
parents has not been ideal. Their personal
differences have grown into a long and bitter
conflict. However, the Court cannot allow the
child to become a casualty of this conflict. What
matters most is that the child grows up in an
atmosphere where he feels secure, loved, and
cared for.
8. At present, the child is living with his mother in
Ireland and seems to be settled there. It would
not be in his interest to disturb that arrangement
at this stage. The father has also limited his
request before us as he is not asking for custody,
but only for the chance to interact with his son
regularly through video-conferencing.
9. We find this request to be both fair and
necessary. Every child has a right to the affection
of both parents. Even if parents live apart or in
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 5 of 7
different countries, it is important for the child to
maintain a relationship with both of them.
Denying such contact would deprive the child of
the love, guidance, and emotional support of the
father.
10. We are therefore of the view that the appellant’s
request for video interaction is reasonable. It
balances the reality of the child’s present living
situation with the need to ensure that the father
remains a part of the child’s life.
11. We accordingly direct as follows:
(i) The appellant shall be entitled to interact with
his son through video-conferencing for two
hours on every alternate Sunday from 10.00
AM to 12 noon (Ireland time) .
(ii) Both parties shall cooperate to ensure that the
arrangement is carried out smoothly, in good
faith, without obstruction or hostility.
(iii) Any technical or logistical difficulties in
arranging the video sessions shall be resolved
mutually, keeping in mind that the interest of
the child is paramount.
12. With the above directions, the appeal stands
disposed of.
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 6 of 7
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 02, 2025
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 7 of 7
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11332 OF 2025
(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO. 25029 OF 2025
@ Diary No(s).60690 OF 2024)
MANOJ DHANKAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEEHARIKA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the order dated
04.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2655 of
2023. The appellant is the father of the minor
son, aged about 9 years. Respondent No. 1 is the
mother of the child, and Respondents No. 2 and
3 are her parents.
3. The background of the case reveals a long-
standing matrimonial and custody dispute
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.09.02
18:26:21 IST
Reason:
between the parties.
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 1 of 7
3.1. The appellant and Respondent No. 1 were
married on 26.11.2012. Their son was born on
18.01.2016.
3.2. In 2017, the respondent-mother left the
matrimonial home. She subsequently filed a
petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia)
1
and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
3.3. In 2018, the appellant initiated proceedings
before the Family Court seeking custody of the
minor child.
3.4. By order dated 19.03.2019, the Family Court
partially allowed the application and permitted
the appellant to meet the child twice a month,
on Fridays, at the child’s school.
3.5. The parties thereafter attempted a settlement,
as the respondent-mother intended to travel to
Ireland. They jointly filed for divorce by mutual
consent and withdrew the earlier petitions. The
first motion under Section 13-B of the HMA
was recorded on 28.08.2019 along with an
agreement regarding custody of the child.
3.6. However, the compromise fell through, and the
mutual consent petition was withdrawn.
1
For short “HMA”
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 2 of 7
3.7. The appellant then instituted a petition under
Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 seeking custody.
3.8. By interim order dated 03.02.2022, the Family
Court granted the appellant custody every
Saturday and Sunday, subject to the condition
that the child would not be taken out of
Rohtak, Haryana.
3.9. By final order dated 27.03.2023, the Family
Court dismissed the petition on the ground
that the appellant had violated the terms of the
interim order dated 03.02.2022. The appellant
challenged this decision before the High Court
in FAO No. 2655 of 2023.
3.10. During the pendency of that appeal, the
respondent-mother took the child to Ireland.
3.11. The appellant thereafter filed several
applications in FAO No. 2655 of 2023. One was
for disclosure of the child’s travel itinerary,
which he later withdrew. Another sought
disclosure of the itinerary, arrangement of
video interaction with the child, and the return
of the child from Ireland to India.
3.12. By order dated 25.07.2023, the High Court
issued notice only to the extent of disclosure of
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 3 of 7
the child’s itinerary. That order was challenged
before this Court, but the Special Leave
Petition was dismissed. The appellant then
filed an application for early hearing of his
main appeal before the High Court.
3.13. By the impugned order dated 04.10.2024, the
High Court dismissed the appeal. It relied on
this Court’s dismissal of the earlier Special
Leave Petition, noted the appellant’s breach of
the Family Court’s interim custody
arrangement, and held that the child had been
living with the respondent-mother since
18.08.2017 and no material was placed to
show that she was incapable of caring for the
child.
3.14. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has
approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
5. Before this Court, the appellant’s senior counsel
has pressed the appeal only to the extent of
securing visitation rights through video-
conferencing.
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 4 of 7
6. The present matter is sensitive because it
concerns the future of a young child. When such
disputes arise, the central question is not who is
right or wrong as between the parents, but what
arrangement will best serve the child. The
emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the
child must always come first.
7. It is also clear to us that the conduct of both
parents has not been ideal. Their personal
differences have grown into a long and bitter
conflict. However, the Court cannot allow the
child to become a casualty of this conflict. What
matters most is that the child grows up in an
atmosphere where he feels secure, loved, and
cared for.
8. At present, the child is living with his mother in
Ireland and seems to be settled there. It would
not be in his interest to disturb that arrangement
at this stage. The father has also limited his
request before us as he is not asking for custody,
but only for the chance to interact with his son
regularly through video-conferencing.
9. We find this request to be both fair and
necessary. Every child has a right to the affection
of both parents. Even if parents live apart or in
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 5 of 7
different countries, it is important for the child to
maintain a relationship with both of them.
Denying such contact would deprive the child of
the love, guidance, and emotional support of the
father.
10. We are therefore of the view that the appellant’s
request for video interaction is reasonable. It
balances the reality of the child’s present living
situation with the need to ensure that the father
remains a part of the child’s life.
11. We accordingly direct as follows:
(i) The appellant shall be entitled to interact with
his son through video-conferencing for two
hours on every alternate Sunday from 10.00
AM to 12 noon (Ireland time) .
(ii) Both parties shall cooperate to ensure that the
arrangement is carried out smoothly, in good
faith, without obstruction or hostility.
(iii) Any technical or logistical difficulties in
arranging the video sessions shall be resolved
mutually, keeping in mind that the interest of
the child is paramount.
12. With the above directions, the appeal stands
disposed of.
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 6 of 7
13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 02, 2025
SLP(C) DIARY NO.60690/2024 Page 7 of 7