Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
P. Pushpalatha – Appellant
Versus
S. Kavin – Respondent
CRP No. 2173 of 2026 | CMP NO. 9478 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Soundar Vijay Arul Ram
The court maintains visitation rights for a non-custodial parent within a secure family court setting to ensure the welfare of the child and parental interaction.
Headnote:The proceedings arise under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of the Family Court that granted visitation rights to a father. The core facts involve a dispute over child visitation, where the lower court permitted the father to see his children at the court premises. The High Court determined that the visitation arrangement was balanced and safeguarded. The issue addressed was whether the visitation order posed a risk to the custody of the children. The Court reasoned that visitation within the secure confines of a Family Court premises constitutes a protected public area, negating fears of potential child abduction by the non-custodial parent. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the civil revision petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. justification for supervised visitation rights within court premises. (Para 2 , 3) |
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to Set aside the Order and Decretal Order dt. 12/12/2025 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in F.C.O.P. No. 283 of 2024 on the file of the Honble Family Court, Erode.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Family Court, Erode in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in F.C.O.P. No. 283 of 2024.
2. Under the impugned order, visitation rights have been given to the father to visit his children on the first and third Saturday every month at the Family Court premises. Being a father, this Court does not find any infirmity in the directions issued by the trial court. The apprehension of the petitioner that the father may not give back the children to the mother is uncalled for, as the visitation rights have been granted to the father only at the premises of the Family Court, which is a public area and fully safeguarded.
3. Naturally, as a father, he would like to see his children. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04-06-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ab
