Police must aid implementation of an operative visitation order unless it is varied, set aside, or modified.

The petitioner, the father of a minor child, sought enforcement of an interim visitation and custody order dated 18 September 2025 made by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The order permitted him to collect the child at 8:00 a.m. on every second Saturday and return her at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, with overnight custody, and granted him the first three days of the Dasara, Christmas, and summer vacations.

The mother had challenged that order in a separate writ petition, but it had not been stayed, varied, or set aside.

She stated that she was willing to comply and proposed accompanying the child during initial overnight visits to help her adjust.

Attempts at an amicable arrangement were unsuccessful.

The father sought police assistance, as well as directions for handover and compensatory custody for missed visits.

Whether police protection should be directed to assist the petitioner in exercising visitation rights under a Family Court order that remained operative and had not been stayed or varied.

Whether the High Court should determine the manner of handover, direct the mother to comply, or grant compensatory custody in these writ proceedings.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying interim custody order was made under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The Court proceeded on the basis that an operative visitation order that has not been stayed, set aside, or modified remains enforceable; it directed police assistance to facilitate its peaceful and effective implementation.

No precedent was cited, and the Court did not articulate any broader statutory test.

The Court noted that the Family Court’s order remained in force despite the mother’s separate challenge, and that the mother had expressed willingness to comply.

Because the dispute concerned implementation of existing visitation rights, the Court confined its decision to facilitating those rights rather than deciding the parties’ proposed arrangements for handover or the extent of visitation.

It therefore directed the police to assist the petitioner, if he requested it, while taking account of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Court made that direction conditional on the underlying order continuing to operate.

The direction ceases to operate if that order is varied, set aside, or modified.

The Court did not grant the requested directions for direct compliance by the mother, handover arrangements, or compensatory custody; it left the manner and extent of visitation to the proceedings before the appropriate court.