The Karnataka High Court has held that a father who voluntarily relinquished his visitation rights in a mediated divorce settlement cannot later seek to enforce such rights after failing to discharge his parental responsibilities, observing that “When he is not ready to take-up the responsibility of the child financially and emotionally, he can’t interfere in the life of the child for visitation again. When he avoids duty, he can’t get rights.”
Justice P. Sree Sudha allowed a writ petition and set aside a Family Court order that had granted visitation rights to her former husband, despite a binding mediation settlement under which he had agreed to permanently relinquish those rights.
According to the petitioner, the parties dissolved their marriage through a decree of divorce in September 2024 based on a settlement before the Karnataka Mediation Centre. Under Clause 3 of the settlement, the father expressly consented to the mother being the permanent custodian and guardian of their minor son and unequivocally gave up his visitation rights. Despite this, he later initiated guardianship proceedings before the Family Court and secured an order granting visitation.
The mother argued that the father had made no effort to financially support, emotionally nurture, or even visit the child since birth. She further submitted that he had remarried and that the child was receiving proper care, education, and a stable upbringing under her custody.
The High Court found that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the binding nature of the mediated settlement. It noted that the father had voluntarily and consciously surrendered his visitation rights and could not be permitted to reopen the issue after about a year. Making a significant observation, the Court said:
“
“When he is not ready to take-up the responsibility of the child financially and emotionally, he can’t interfere in the life of the child for visitation again. When he avoids duty, he can’t get rights. It is stated by the petitioner-mother that she never sought for maintenance, but only asked the Family Court to declare her as the permanent custodian for the welfare of the minor child. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Family Court is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside.”
Thus, holding that the Family Court’s order was based on an improper appreciation of the facts, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order granting visitation rights to the father.
