In a petition filed to assail an order dated 24-03-2025 passed by the Family Court, Cuttack, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for visiting his 7-year-old minor son was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the family court.
The petitioner married the opposite party 1 on 09-07-2011, and they lived together for five years before eventually separating. After the marriage was dissolved, the opposite party 1 remarried an elderly person having three children from his first marriage.
The petitioner contended that the petitioner had agreed with opposite party 1 that their daughter would remain in the custody of opposite party 1 and that their son would remain in the exclusive custody of the petitioner with mutual visitation rights. On 05-02-2024, after the petitioner dropped his son at school, the child fell ill and was taken away by the opposite party upon being intimated by the School Authorities. Since then, the opposite party 1 had allegedly not allowed the petitioner to meet or communicate with the child.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Act), for custody of his son. However, the Family Court rejected the same, citing the absence of a suitable neutral venue and apprehension of untoward incidents.
The Court noted that an interim order dated 16-05-2025, passed by this Court, permitted the petitioner to make calls once a day to opposite party 1 if he wished to talk to the son. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an affidavit stating that the opposite party 1 acted in accordance with the orders for only ten days.
On 12-08-2025, the Court interacted with the opposite party 2 (son), who was weeping while entering the chamber. On being asked, the son said that he was scared of the man standing outside the chamber and disclosed that the man was the present petitioner.
On a prima facie consideration, the Court opined that the refusal of the visitation right to the natural father by the Family Court by the impugned order appeared to be unjust and contrary to the settled position of law. Further, it was said that the issue must be decided based on what is in the best interest of the child, and that the impugned order required interference.
Thus, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the Judge, Family Court, to pass appropriate orders for deciding the place, frequency, and time of visit till the disposal of the case. Further, the court was also directed to put an appropriate condition for the petitioner to be in touch with his son telephonically or through WhatsApp communication during the pendency of the case. An appropriate order was directed to be passed within three weeks.
Thus, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mrs. Suman Modi
For Opposite Parties – Mr. Kirtan Dang
