Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Saurav Raiguru - Petitioner
Versus
Ananya Mishra - Opposite Party
W.P.(C) No.12857 of 2025
Decided On : 28-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.K. Acharya, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. A. Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate

A natural parent has a right to visitation with their child unless serious allegations against them are substantiated, prioritizing the child's welfare and emotional bonding.

Headnote:(A) Family Court Orders - Section 151 of CPC - Visitation Rights - The petitioner sought visitation rights denied by Family Court due to alleged serious allegations against him - Court emphasized that a natural parent has the right to relationship with their child despite accusations, unless proven otherwise. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 19)

(B) Child Welfare - Importance of maintaining a parent-child bond is underscored as a child's entitlement, and visitation rights must prioritize the child's emotional wellbeing. (Paras 13, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, married to the opposite party, contested the rejection of his visitation rights for his son amid ongoing legal disputes and serious allegations against him. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The Family Court's order denying visitation lacked a foundational basis for the allegations and did not consider the child's welfare. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: Whether allegations justified the rejection of visitation rights and the welfare of the minor as paramount. (Paras 10, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that allegations against the petitioner were insufficient to deny visitation without substantiation. Emotional ties with both parents are critical for the child's development. (Paras 12, 19)

Result: The writ petition is allowed, and visitation rights are granted with specific terms. (Paras 22, 23)

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks visitation rights for child. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for petitioner's visitation rights. (Para 4)
3. opposition's justification for denying visitation. (Para 5 , 8)
4. court's observation on application for visitation. (Para 6 , 7 , 10)
5. enforcement of visitation rights and welfare of child. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. definition and importance of visitation rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. conclusion on visitation order and conditions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. Impugned is the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P No.299 of 2024, vide which the following prayers of the Petitioner under Section 151 of CPC for visitation rights to meet with his infant son, namely, “Shlok Raiguru”, stood rejected:

“a. The Petitioner/husband and his parents may be allowed visitation rights to see his son, Baby Shlok Raiguru, on each Sundays of the month at Cuttack preferably at Hotel Promod Convention between 03-05 P.M. and he may be permitted to give gifts for his son.

b. Once in a weekday (Wednesday 3 PM) whatsapp video call for 15 mons with Shlok.

c. Shlok will spend a few hours on his birthday with his father & his family.

d. Shlok will also attend his father-side ceremonies, functions, events of friends & families as needed for the duration as required including travel.

e. Shlok will spend 4 hours 3 PM to 7 PM with Saurav and his family on Saurav and his parents’ birthdays, Odia and Hindu festivals.”

2. Though, vide order dated 07.08.2025, on being suggested by learned Counsel for the parties, both the parties were directed to appear before the Mediator, High Court Mediation Centre, but, as per the mediation report dated 18.08.2025 on record, the mediation failed. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.08.2025, though this Court granted time to the Opposite Party-wife to file Counter, if any, unfailingly before the next date of listing, no Counter was filed by the Opposite Party opposing to the prayer made in the writ petition. However, on consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition was taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission permitting the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife to have his say/oral objection, if any, in response to the prayer made in the writ petition.

3. The brief background of the present lis, as detailed in the writ petition, is that on 02.04.2021 the Petitioner and the Opposite Party got married in Cuttack. Thereafter, they moved to Bangalore, where both were employed. A male child namely, Shlok Raiguru was born to them on 29.12.2023 in Bangalore.

3.1 It is the case of the Petitioner that, on 18.01.2024, the Opposite Party, without his consent, left the matrimonial home along with the minor son. On the very same day, she lodged an F.I.R in Mahila P.S. Case, Cuttack alleging offences under Section 4 98A, 307, 354 of IPC along with other provisions, including Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, shortly, ‘D.P. Act’. Pursuant to the same, notices were issued under Section 4 1A to the Petitioner and his Parents and they were released on personal bond. Meanwhile, a charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned SDJM, Cuttack, wherein alleged offences under Sections 307 & 354 of I.P.C. have been dropped.

3.2. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on the ground of cruelty citing mistreatment and torture by the Opposite Party. In parallel, the Opposite Party also filed a petition under Sections 12 and 23 of the PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT , 2005, shortly, ‘D.V. Act’, before the learned JMFC (City), Cuttack claiming interim maintenance along with house rent. On contest, the learned Court below allowed Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.10,000/- per month towards house rent. Both the parties have challenged the said order before the learned District Judge, Cuttack, which is now pend