JUDGMENT

1. Present petition is directed against impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Valsad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking counseling of minor daughters through a qualified child counselor has been rejected.

2. For admission of this petition, I have heard learned advocate Mr. Vinayak Goswamy for the petitioner.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Goswamy would submit that learned Family Court, Valsad in Family Suit No.91 of 2025 passed an erroneous order below Exh.18 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner seeking counseling of minor daughters through a qualified child counselor. He would further submit that the children have been living separately with their mother since the parties separated. The daughters, who are approximately 7 to 8 years of age, showed hesitance and reluctance in meeting their father. He would further submit that on 24th March, 2024, when the petitioner met the minor daughters in the presence of the mother and her family members, the daughters initially recognized their father and interacted with him, but thereafter distanced themselves.

3.1 To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Goswamy relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Selvaraj Vs. Revathi, (2024) 13 SCC 534 and submitted that the Court can pass an order for counseling of children in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He would further submit that in the present case, the photographs at Annexure B show the children appearing happy, however, subsequent conduct indicates that the children may have been influenced against their father, raising serious concern regarding parental alienation. He would further submit that the aforesaid scenario indicates that welfare of two minor daughters are at stake and therefore, both of them required counseling. He would further submit that welfare of children is paramount consideration in a child custody matter or where issue of visitation right involves.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Goswamy also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Vikas Agarwal Vs. Geeti Mathur reported in MANU/DE/0366/2017. He would further submit that initially, under the visitation, the petitioner was able to meet the minor daughters and it was happy time for both the father and minor daughters, but then, the minor daughters started changing their behaviour and now, refused to meet the petitioner, which is unacceptable and perhaps it is a result of poison poured in the ears of two minor daughters by her mother.

3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Goswamy also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo reported in AIR 2011 SC 1952 so also judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Aparna Jigarbhai Vala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024(1) GLH 1348 and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in case of Antara, a non-profit Society and another Vs. the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, service through Registrar General, High Court rendered in WPA(P) 166 of 2002 and submitted that the learned Family Court has committed serious error in rejecting the application for seeking counseling of minor daughters through a qualified child counselor.

3.4 Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr. Goswamy prays to admit and allow present petition.

4. At the outset, let refer the nature of scope of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is enlightened in case of Garment Crafts Vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 15 and 16, held as under:-

“15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not