The Orissa High Court emphasizes that visitation rights are a crucial entitlement of both parents. Courts must prioritize the child’s welfare, ensuring access to both parents, even amid disputes or custody challenges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CUTTACK: In a ruling reinforcing the rights of parents, the Orissa High Court recently intervened in a Family Court order that denied a father visitation rights with his 7-year-old son. The case highlights the principle that decisions regarding child welfare must prioritize the best interests of the child, rather than the preferences of one parent alone.
ALSO READ: Bihar Elections 2025 | Paid Holiday for All Employees on Polling Day: ECI
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by the natural father challenging the Family Court’s refusal to grant him visitation rights. The petitioner and his former wife had married in 2011 but separated after five years due to temperamental differences. The wife later filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was granted ex parte. She subsequently remarried a man with three children from his previous marriage.
The father claimed that there was an earlier mutual understanding: the daughter would remain with the mother, the son with the father, and both parents would enjoy mutual visitation rights. However, the mother allegedly took the son away during an illness and did not allow the father any contact thereafter.
Despite the father filing applications under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, for custody and visitation, the Family Court rejected his request, citing lack of a neutral venue and potential risks.
ALSO READ: Justice Prathiba Singh Appointed As Chairman of WIPO Judges Board
Orissa High Court’s Intervention
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, in a single-bench ruling, emphasized that visitation rights are an important right of either parent, and courts must consider the child’s welfare above all else. The Bench noted that prior interim arrangements allowed the father to make daily calls or WhatsApp calls to his son, yet the mother allegedly influenced the child to refer to him as “Uncle,” casting doubt on her claims that the child feared his father.
The Court observed that the father had refrained from remarrying, whereas the mother had remarried into a family with three children. Considering the Counsellor’s Report and the overall circumstances, the Court held that denying visitation rights was unjust and contrary to established legal principles.
ALSO READ: Tribal Women Cannot Inherit Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Supreme Court
The High Court allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Cuttack, for reconsideration. The Family Court was instructed to:
- Reassess the visitation request in light of the child’s best interests.
- Ensure interim communication, allowing the father to remain in touch with his son via phone or WhatsApp during the pendency of proceedings.
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Advocate Suman Modi
For Opp. Party No.1: Advocate Kirtan Dang
For Opp. Party No.2: None
Case Title:
Sanjay Sharma Versus Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma & another
W.P.(C) No.10091 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT