Courts cannot deny parental visitation solely on unsubstantiated allegations; supervised access may safeguard the child’s welfare.

The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Family Court, Jajpur in C.P. No. 05 of 2024, by which his application under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking intermittent casual custody and visitation of his minor daughter, Divyanshi, was rejected.

The matrimonial proceeding had been instituted by the respondent-wife under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The wife opposed visitation on the grounds that the petitioner was addicted to liquor and intoxicants, had subjected her to abuse and assault, and might attempt to kidnap the child.

The Family Court relied substantially on these allegations and apprehensions concerning the child’s welfare and denied both custody and visitation.

The wife did not appear before the High Court despite service and repeated opportunities.

Whether the Family Court was justified in completely denying the father visitation and interaction with the minor child solely on the basis of allegations regarding his alleged addiction and the wife’s apprehension, without sufficient material substantiating a risk to the child.

Whether the child’s welfare and safety could be protected by permitting regulated and supervised visitation and virtual interaction with the father.

The Court applied Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governing orders concerning the custody, maintenance and education of minor children.

The controlling principle is that the welfare of the child is paramount and that a child ordinarily requires the love, affection, care and companionship of both parents.

In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67, the Supreme Court held that even where custody is granted to one parent, the other parent should ordinarily receive sufficient visitation rights, and that denial of all contact is justified only in exceptional circumstances; courts must specify the nature and manner of visitation.

The Court also relied on Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3736; Ayeesurya Mishra v. Lohit Kumar Dash, W.P.(C) No. 22651 of 2024; and Saurav Raiguru v. Ananya Mishra, 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 6565, reiterating that the non-custodial parent should ordinarily be granted access unless exceptional circumstances justify denial.

Further, Manoj Dhankar v. Neeharika, 2025 (II) CLR (SC) 1042, recognized video conferencing as a reasonable means of preserving the father’s relationship with the child while maintaining the child’s existing living arrangements.

The High Court held that the Family Court had proceeded principally on the wife’s allegations of the petitioner’s alcohol and intoxicant addiction and the apprehended psychological impact on the child, but there was no material beyond those pleadings sufficient to establish that visitation would cause such harm as to warrant a complete denial of contact.

Applying the principle that a child has a right to maintain meaningful contact with both parents, the Court found that the petitioner’s alleged conduct did not, on the existing record, constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying total exclusion.

At the same time, recognising the seriousness of the allegations, the Court balanced the child’s welfare and safety with the father’s right of access by directing that physical visitation be supervised at the mother’s residence and supported by police presence, while also permitting structured video calls.

The father was granted supervised visitation with the minor child twice a month, ordinarily on the second and fourth Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at the mother’s residence, with a constable from Kuakhia Police Station present in civilian dress.

The first visitation was fixed for 20.09.2026.

The father was also permitted to meet the child on her birthday, give her gifts, and interact with her through WhatsApp or another video-conferencing platform on the first and third Sundays and other holidays for approximately one hour.

Both parties were directed not to create unpleasant situations during visitation or virtual interaction; non-compliance by either party could result in appropriate consequences, including debarring the father from visitation or video interaction.

There was no order as to costs, and the judgment was directed to be communicated to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kuakhia Police Station.