In child custody disputes, the Court must observe parens patriae jurisdiction, prioritizing the minor's emotional and psychological welfare over adversarial legal claims. Imposing mechanical visitation orders, particularly on toddlers forcing frequent court appearances, without regard to the child's best interests is improper and liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - mother has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction or order and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. I/C Judge, Family Court, Dhrol-Jodia below Ex. 19 in Civil Misc. Application No. (DC) 03 of 2025, in the interest of justice;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of impugned order dtd. 11.09.2025 passed below Ex.19 in Civil Misc. Application No. (DC) 03 of 2025, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this application;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as are deemed fit, in the interest of justice;”

2. The order passed below Exh.19 has been passed by the learned Family Court, Jodiya – Dhrol in CMA filed by the respondent - original petitioner herein u/s 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking permanent custody of minor son “A” (identity of the minor is hidden) from the petitioner - mother – mother. original petitioner is grandfather of the minor. During the pendency of the petition, the learned Family Court, without having any prayer below Exh.19, passed the following order:-

“1. Opponent is directed to remain present with minor at Family Court, Dhrol, on each working Thursday to have access to applicants to minor in the court premises itself from 11.00 a.m. - 05.00 p.m. till the disposal of the present application on merits.

2. During the span of access, opponent and applicants have to sit together and opponent will not act in any manner prejudice to the interest of the applicants. Opponent will not remain present with her second husband during such meeting.

3. Both the parties will take care of food for minor in the court premises. Applicants can give gifts, clothes and toys to the minor and opponent will accept it and permit minor to use it and will cooperate in such access.”

3. It is in the aforesaid background, the petitioner - mother has approached this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rachh for the petitioner - mother and learned advocate Mr. Henil Shah for the respondent - original petitioner.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner - mother would submit that Exh.19 filed before the learned trial Court is just a pursis, whereby the respondent - original petitioner has made some declaration only and no relief was claimed therein, yet the learned Family Court passed order impugned in this petition and directed the petitioner - mother to remain present on every working Thursday in the Court along with the minor, who is aged two and half years, between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and granted access to the respondent - original petitioner and further restrained the second husband of the petitioner - mother from remaining present there. He would further submit that second husband of the petitioner - mother is not party to the proceedings, and yet, the learned Family Court in excess of its jurisdiction, passed the impugned order against non—party to the proceedings, which itself shows the so called merits of the impugned order. He would further submit that consequent to passing of order below Exh.19, the learned Family Court also passed common order below Exhs.28, 29 and 30, whereby the petitioner - mother was directed to remain