Orissa High Court Grants Father & Grandparents Visitation To 2-Year-Old; Says Grandparental Bond Vital For Child’s Growth & Stability
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa, Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has allowed visitation rights to a father and the grandparents of a two-year-old child, observing that an affectionate relationship between a grandchild and grandparents plays a vital role in the child’s overall growth and emotional stability. The Court set aside the Family Court’s order that had denied such access, noting that the mother had taken the child from the father’s custody when the infant was only three weeks old. Directing supervised interactions at the High Court Mediation Centre in Cuttack and regular virtual contact, the Court held that continued parental and familial connection was essential for the child’s welfare.
The case concerns a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the father of a minor child, challenging an order of the Family Court that had rejected his application for visitation rights. The petitioner and the opposite party married in 2021 and lived in Bangalore, where their son was born in December 2023. According to the petitioner, the opposite party left the matrimonial home in January 2024 with the infant and lodged a police complaint alleging cruelty and other offences. A subsequent chargesheet dropped some of the more serious allegations. The petitioner later filed a divorce petition alleging cruelty, while the opposite party-initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act seeking maintenance, which resulted in interim monetary relief.
The petitioner submitted that he had been denied access to his child since the opposite party had blocked all communication. He produced emails sent to her requesting access and asserted that he was willing to travel to Cuttack for visitation. He also stated that his parents wished to meet their grandchild. He further alleged that the opposite party travelled frequently, leaving the child with relatives, and that she had resigned from her employment.
The opposite party opposed the request for visitation, alleging assault by the petitioner and his parents, threats to her safety, and attempts to harm her while she cared for the child. She stated that she left the matrimonial home under police supervision due to fear for her safety. She maintained that pending criminal and domestic violence cases justified refusal of visitation at this stage.
The Family Court refused visitation on grounds that the allegations were serious and that permitting interactions might pose harm to the opposite party and the child. The petitioner challenged this order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The Court recorded that the Family Court’s reasoning rested on apprehensions of harm to the opposite party and the child, which the High Court found unsupported by materials on record. It noted that “all the alleged incidents… were prior to 18.01.2024” and that nothing was produced to indicate “a consistent life threat to the Opposite Party-wife so also her small kid after lodging the FIR.” It further stated that a natural father “who is desperate to see and meet his son… cannot cause any harm to his own son so also wife.” The Court observed that the Family Court’s conclusion was “based on the surmises and conjunctures so also without any materials on record.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Yashita Sahu, quoting that “a child… requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents” and that visitation is to be denied only in “extreme circumstances.” It also quoted that the non-custodial parent must have sufficient access so that the child “does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents.” Regarding contact rights, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s view that video calling is an important tool, and the parent denied custody should “have the right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes every day.”
The Court observed: “In the Indian society, the grandparents form an integral part for upbringing of children and that part of affection and contribution cannot be ignored or shelved and it is the welfare of the children which this Court is concerned. The grandparents, being ancillary part and parcel of the family, would hold the way for welfare of the child. Therefore, meeting of the grandparents with the children would also be a necessary part for upbringing, before their mind is polluted by unilateral act of any of the single parents.”
The High Court set aside the order dated 20.03.2025 passed in C.P. No.299 of 2024. It stated that the prayer for visitation and interaction with the minor child was allowed on specific terms. The Court directed that, because there were allegations and counter-allegations of cruelty, “it would be advisable to have a supervised visitation at High Court Mediation Centre, Aain Seva Bhawan, Cuttack,” which is near the residence of the opposite party.
It ordered that such visitation shall take place “twice in every calendar month” and that the dates “would be normally on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month at 11 A.M.” The first date was fixed as “15.11.2025 at 11 A.M.” before the Mediation Centre, and all subsequent dates were to be fixed by the Mediator in consultation with the parties.
The Court directed that the petitioner’s parents “will have the visitation right” and may meet the child along with the petitioner on the scheduled dates. Each visitation shall last “for about two hours i.e., from 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.” The petitioner and his parents were permitted to give gifts to the child. The petitioner and his parents were also permitted to meet the child “on his birthday… at High Court Mediation Centre, Cuttack, until the child attains the age of 5 years.” If the birthday or visitation date coincides with a weekly off day or public holiday, the date “shall be preponed or postponed to the preceding or succeeding date” with prior intimation to the coordinator.
The Court directed the Coordinator of the Mediation Centre to make arrangements for visitation in the crèche, if available, or in a separate room. A trained female Mediator with a lady peon shall remain present throughout. The petitioner must pay “Rs.2,000/- in cash to the Opposite Party-wife on each date of visitation” to meet conveyance and related expenses, and the Mediator must ensure such payment.
The Court permitted the petitioner and his parents to interact with the child through “WhatsApp video calling or any other suitable mode of Video Conferencing” every 2nd and 4th Saturday and Sunday and other holidays from “6.00 P.M. to 7.00 P.M.” The petitioner must provide a new Android mobile phone with a valid SIM exclusively for facilitating video calls, to be handed over on 15.11.2025.
The Court stated that the grandparents “shall also be permitted to participate through WhatsApp group video calling.” Both sides were directed not to create any unpleasant situation during visitation or video interaction. Both parties were required to remain in touch with the coordinator regarding difficulties, and the coordinator shall apprise the Court for any necessary variation. The directives shall continue “until the minor child… completes the age of five years.” After that, the petitioner may move the competent Court for “stepped-up visitation or any other relief.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.K. Acharya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. A. Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate
Case Title: X v Y
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.12857 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
