The case revolves around a couple who married on September 9, 2021, and had a daughter on June 6, 2022. However, the marriage began to deteriorate shortly after the child's birth. In June 2023, the mother (the appellant) filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty, domestic violence, and desertion. According to the appellant's petition, the respondent (the father) had been abusive and had deserted the family, returning only to attempt to harm them. She further claimed that the father had shown no interest in caring for the child.

In response, the father sought visitation rights during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. On November 10, 2023, the Family Court in Madurai granted the respondent's request, ordering the appellant to bring the child to Karur, a town about 150 kilometers from Madurai, every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM for visitation.

The appellant challenged this order in the Madras High Court, arguing that the distance of 300 kilometers (round trip) was too arduous for a young child. The appellant also expressed concerns about the respondent's past behavior, claiming that the father was effectively a stranger to the child and that such visits would cause distress to the minor. The appellant further cited threats to her life and the child as a result of the respondent's alleged abusive behavior.

The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, reasoning that as the natural guardian, the father had the right to access and custody of the child. While acknowledging the failed attempts at reconciliation, the court modified the Family Court's order, extending the visitation period to Sundays from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM and requiring the child to be handed over to the respondent at a more convenient location in Karur.

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which issued notice and heard arguments from the appellant's counsel. The primary grievance raised was the long distance between the appellant’s residence in Madurai and the respondent's in Karur, which could be detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. The appellant argued that the two-year-old child had spent little time with the father and that such long-distance travel every week could cause undue stress on the minor.

While the Supreme Court acknowledged the respondent's right as the natural guardian of the child and his desire to maintain a relationship with his daughter, it also stressed that the child's health, comfort, and well-being must be the primary consideration in any custodial or visitation arrangements. The Court recognized the complexity of the case, with ongoing allegations of domestic violence, which required further scrutiny but were not relevant at this interim stage concerning visitation rights.

After reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court found that the original arrangement of visitation in Karur could potentially harm the child. The Court noted that while the respondent had a right to maintain a relationship with the child, the location and the long-distance travel were not conducive to the child’s best interests. Thus, the Court modified the High Court's decision and shifted the venue of visitation to Madurai, taking into account the child’s tender age and the health concerns raised by the appellant.

The modified arrangement stipulated that the respondent could visit the child every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, but the visits would take place in Madurai. The visits would occur in public spaces like parks or temple premises, ensuring a neutral and safe environment. Furthermore, the appellant would remain present during these visits but would stay at a distance of approximately 10 feet to allow the father and child to interact. This arrangement ensures that the child is not overwhelmed and that the appellant is available if needed but not directly involved in the visitation.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the delicate balance that courts must strike between upholding parental rights and ensuring the well-being of children. While the father’s right to maintain a relationship with his child is undeniable, the Court’s decision prioritizes the child’s health and emotional security. The judgment also serves as a reminder that interim orders in family matters, particularly concerning minors, must be made with great care, keeping the child’s welfare at the forefront.

The Supreme Court prioritizes the child's welfare in child custody and visitation matters.

The long-distance visitation arrangement in the original order was deemed detrimental to the child’s health.

The modified visitation plan shifts the venue to a location closer to the appellant's residence, ensuring the child's comfort and well-being.

The decision underscores the importance of carefully considering both parents' rights and the child’s best interests in family law proceedings.