A structured visitation schedule must balance child's welfare with parental rights, minimizing procedural burdens in custody matters.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the judgment dated 23 August 2024 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. (FC) No. 364 of 2024. By the impugned order the High Court declined to set aside an interim-custody arrangement made by the Family Court, Ernakulam on 21 September 2023 in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, and directed the appellant–father to continue moving a fresh application each time he visited India for overnight access to his minor daughter.

3. The essential background may be stated briefly. The parties were married on 10 January 2016. The appellant is a graduate engineer who has spent most of his career on rotational overseas assignments, initially in Angola and, since 27 August 2024, in the United Arab Emirates, returning to India during scheduled breaks. The respondent-mother, a homemaker, resides with the child at Ernakulam.

4. Their daughter, Manna Ann Eby, was born on 17 October 2017. Following marital discord, the respondent left the matrimonial home with the child on 4 March 2023, and since then the child has remained exclusively in her care at Ernakulam. On 29 April 2023 the appellant instituted O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking permanent custody of the child. Pending that petition he filed applications for interim visitation.

5. The Family Court, by a common order dated 21 September 2023 on I.A. Nos. 2 & 4 of 2023, recorded that the child was comfortable in the company of the appellant, permitted daily video interaction from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., granted one weekend of overnight custody, and observed that “as and when the petitioner is available here, he may move necessary application for getting overnight custody.”

6. Thereafter the appellant, who is employed overseas on a rotation basis, was required to file a separate interlocutory application (hereinafter IA) on every visit to India. Between September 2023 and May 2024, he filed numerous interim applications before the Family Court and four original petitions before the High Court, cumulatively obtaining only 37 days of physical access during one academic year.

7. Contending that the “apply-each-time” arrangement of the Family Court caused uncertainty, financial strain, and loss of leave, the appellant approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by O.P. (FC) No. 364 of 2024, praying for a single, definitive interim schedule not exceeding fifty per cent of the child’s vacations and all weekends when he is in India, together with continued daily video calls.

8. The respondent opposed the petition, submitting that any standing arrangement should await the trial in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023. She maintained that the Family Court had already afforded liberty to seek access as and when required.

9. The High Court dismissed the petition but, by way of ad hoc relief, directed interim custody from 10 a.m. on 24 August 2024 to 5 p.m. on 26 August 2024 and again from 10 a.m. on 14 September 2024 to 5 p.m. on 17 September 2024, with exchange at the respondent’s residence and freedom for the mother to interact telephonically during the child’s stay with the father.

10. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant filed the present appeal before us praying for a definitive interim arrangement for his visitation schedule with the child.

11. During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore a mutually acceptable interim arrangement. However, despite multiple comprehensive sessions, no settlement could be reached a