A party's right to visitation of a family member, as established by court orders, cannot be arbitrarily denied, and any obstruction is to be treated seriously.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

This contempt case is certainly an unfortunate one; and we are more concerned because, on account of these proceedings, the Authorities and doctors of a hospital also has had to be involved and put to some amount of inconvenience.

2. Everything began when the respondent refused to allow the petitioners visitation over the patient – their father, in spite of the directions of this Court.

3. Initially, we did not believe the allegations fully; and therefore, requested Smt.T.R.Devika to act as an Amicus Curiae and to facilitate the visitation between the petitioners and the patient at the hospital. However, she was met with stiff resistance from the respondent, including by unacceptable demeanour.

4. We then appointed Smt.T.R.Devika as an Advocate Commissioner at the cost of the respondent; and when she then went to the hospital, she was treated with derision by the latter. She made several attempts, and even though she was able to fructify the visitation between the petitioners and the patient, she had to face a lot of humiliation; and this is clear from her reports filed before us.

5. We cannot countenance the Amici Curiae or Advocate Commissioners appointed by us, in having to face the afore situation; and it has to be put down with the strictest note of voice as possible.

6. Subsequently, at our orders, the respondent was present before us along with her daughter.

7. Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Mini V.A. - appearing for the respondent, submitted that his client was probably ill-advised and under pressure because of the long duration she had to spend with the patient at the hospital. He pointed out that, she has filed an affidavit offering unconditional apology and further undertaking that she will not behave, in any manner, contrary to the spirit of the judgment and orders of this Court. He added that his client will agree to any arrangement that this Court may make in future.

8. We, therefore, passed an order on

27.02.2026, directing that the petitioners be with the patient without the presence of the respondent; but it was then reported to us that even though she removed herself, her daughter remained in the room. The explanation offered was that, one of them will have to be with the patient because only they know what he wants, he being bedridden at this stage.

9. We, therefore, asked Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar – learned counsel for the hospital where the patient is, to obtain instructions as to the best protocol that can be followed, so that the petitioners can obtain visitation with their father, with the latter kept away from any kind of infection and harm.

10. Today, Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar submitted that the hospital has no objection to the petitioners being given visitation with the patient for two hours twice a week; but explained that it will be better that the daughter of the respondent remain in the room, since, otherwise, a nurse will have to be deputed for such purpose.

11. As we said in the prefatory paragraph, this is a rather unfortunate situation, which has been unnecessarily created solely because of the strife between the parties. The petitioners are children of the patient, and their right to be with him at least for a few hours every week can never be denuded; and this stands fortified by our judgment and directions earlier.

12. That said, we propose not to take any further action against the respondent solely on account of the compelling request made before us by her learned Senior Counsel – Sri.S.Sreekumar.

In the afore circumstances, we close this contempt case, deprecating the conduct of