The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that children should not be required to attend courtrooms merely for visitation purposes, stressing that such environments can be intimidating and emotionally distressing for minors. The Court remarked, “The Courts should be the last resort for a child to visit because courts are often seen as intimidating, sterile, and stressful environments that can scar a child emotionally.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that children should not be required to attend courtrooms merely to facilitate visitation, noting that court settings can be intimidating and emotionally harmful to minors.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal made this remark while altering a visitation arrangement between a father and his young son in a family dispute originating in Bhopal.
The appeal was filed by Abdul Rahim Ansari against an interlocutory order of the Second Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bhopal, which had refused to change an earlier visitation schedule. The father sought a more practical, child-friendly way to meet his son.
Under earlier Family Court orders, the father could see the child on the second and fourth Saturday of each month from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., within the Family Court premises and strictly in the mother’s presence. On some occasions, however, the parents argued and exchanged tense words when the child was brought to court.
Considering these facts, the High Court held that repeatedly forcing a child to visit court premises to enable parental meetings was neither desirable nor in the minor’s emotional interest.
The bench said courts should ideally remain the last place where a child is brought in the course of family disputes.
Emphasising that the process of resolving parental conflict must remain sensitive to the child’s psychological comfort, the bench observed,
“The Courts should be the last resort for a child to visit because courts are often seen as intimidating, sterile, and stressful environments that can scar a child emotionally,”
Citing the decision in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the court noted that judges should try to gauge a child’s feelings and attitudes in settings that are comfortable for the child rather than compelling their presence in places perceived as hostile or frightening.
Taking these considerations into account, the bench revised the visitation terms to allow the father to meet the child on the second and fourth Sunday of each month between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at public, child-friendly venues in Bhopal such as parks, malls, or similar locations. The father must inform the child’s mother in advance of the date, time and place of each meeting.
The court also permitted the father to give the child clothing, sweets, gifts, chocolates and toys during these visits so that the encounters resemble ordinary family bonding rather than formal supervised sessions.
The bench stressed that visitation’s goal is to preserve the emotional ties between parent and child. In addition, the High Court allowed the father to bring the child to his home for three hours during the upcoming Eid festival, enabling the child to spend time with his grandfather and other relatives.
The court viewed this arrangement as conducive to maintaining family relationships while safeguarding the child’s comfort and safety.
Advocates Shariq Khan and Achyut Govindam Tiwari appeared for the appellant father, and advocate Pranjal Tiwari represented the respondent.
The bench disposed of the appeal, concluding that the modified arrangement better balances the father’s visitation rights with the child’s welfare, and reiterating that the best interests of the minor must be paramount in all custody and visitation matters.
Case Title: Abdul Rahim Ansari v. Hiba Khan and Others
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Custody