Court Orders Compliance with Final Visitation Rights Before Minor Child Attains Majority Despite Educational Engagements.

The Respondents (paternal grandparents) filed a Guardianship Petition (GP No. 198/2016) seeking custody of a minor child, who has lived with her biological mother (the Petitioner) since infancy.

On 27.09.2025, the Family Court granted the Respondents a single, supervised meeting with the child, conditional upon the Respondents depositing ₹52 lakhs belonging to the minor.

This order was upheld by the High Court in appeal and subsequently by the Supreme Court on 21.05.2026, which noted the Petitioner’s delay tactics and the fact that the child will turn 18 in August 2026.

Following the Supreme Court’s direction for immediate compliance, the Family Court passed an order on 09.06.2026 directing the production of the child on 17.06.2026.

The Petitioner challenged this order via Article 227, citing the child’s college entrance exams and admission process.

1. Whether the Petitioner made out a sufficient case to avoid or further delay the one-time visitation rights granted to the Respondents.

2. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 227 to modify the date of production of the minor child due to educational commitments.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which provides the High Court with the power of superintendence over subordinate courts.

The legal principle of Finality of Litigation, noting that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed the parties to comply with the visitation order "forthwith".

Minority Status and Welfare of the child, acknowledging that visitation rights must be exercised before the child attains majority (18 years) in August 2026.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s challenge lacked merit because the substantive right of visitation had already been affirmed by both the Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence, such as examination schedules, to substantiate the claim that college admissions would prevent the 17.06.2026 appearance.

By mutual agreement of the parties during the hearing, the Court determined that a slight deferment was reasonable to accommodate the student’s schedule while ensuring the Respondents' rights—which were being delayed on "some pretext or the other"—were finally realized before the child reached majority.

The Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to produce the minor child before the Family Court on 02.07.2026 for a one-time supervised visitation between 12:00 PM and 2:30 PM, subject to the Family Court’s interaction with the child.