Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1295

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Manoj Dhankar – Appellant
Versus
Neeharika – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suryadeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Ayaan Thakur, Adv. Mr. S. Vinay Ratnakar, AOR Mr. Farhat Naim, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Ms. Kanak Malik, Adv. M/S. S. Narain & Co., AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that the father’s request for video-conferencing visitation is reasonable and necessary to maintain the father–child relationship (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that the emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the child is paramount in custody disputes and that both parents’ conduct, though not ideal, should not harm the child (!) (!) . - The Court directed that the appellant shall have video-conferencing interaction with his son for two hours on alternate Sundays from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon (Ireland time), and that both parties cooperate and resolve technical/logistical issues mutually (!) (!) (!) . - The Court noted that the child is currently living with his mother in Ireland and that disturbing that arrangement at this stage would not be in the child’s interest (!) . - The appeal was disposed of with the directions for video interaction, and pending applications were disposed of (!) .

What is the court’s determination regarding video-conferencing visitation between the father and his son?

What is the central legal principle guiding custody disputes in this judgment?

What are the specific directions issued by the Court to facilitate the father’s visitation?

JUDGMENT :

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 longstanding matrimonial and custody dispute between the parties.

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) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955¹[For short “HMA”].

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document