Supreme Court upholds High Court remand in custody dispute, grants limited Sunday visitation to father

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard an appeal by the father challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court that set aside a Family Court order and remanded custody-related proceedings for fresh consideration. The narrow question before the Supreme Court was whether an execution petition to enforce visitation under a consent decree could proceed notwithstanding a pending petition by the mother to modify interim custody arrangements.

The Court allowed leave, declined to set aside the High Court’s remand and directed the Family Court to decide the modification petition and the execution petition afresh within three months. The Court emphasised that, while it was “seriously contemplating to direct immediate compliance with the already existing decree,” the welfare of the minor required careful interim arrangements. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In Nil Ratan Kundu (supra), it was stated that ‘… in deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of a minor, a court of law should keep in mind the relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.’ Albeit in a different factual backdrop, the ‘best interest of the child’ principle has also been elucidated in Nithya Anand Raghavan v State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454. In Yashita Sahu v State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67, this Court held that the welfare of the child is paramount in matters relating to custody. In this context, we may refer to Para 22 thereof, which reads as follows: '22. A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. ... It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights.' "

Background The parties married in April 2012 and a son was born in August 2014. They obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 2 September 2021; the Family Court awarded permanent custody to the mother and interim weekend visitation to the father. The father alleged repeated obstruction of visitation and filed an execution petition in February 2023 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to enforce the decree. The Family Court issued directions, including daily video calls, and on 19 January 2024 allowed the execution petition and appointed an Advocate Commissioner. The mother filed an appeal before the Telangana High Court, which on 13 March 2024 allowed her appeal, set aside the Family Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Before the Supreme Court the issues focused narrowly on procedural sequencing — whether execution should proceed pending the mother’s modification petition — and on safeguarding the child’s welfare. The parties relied on precedents including Nil Ratan Kundu, Yashita Sahu and Amyra Dwivedi. The Supreme Court held that, given the parens patriae duty and the “tender and fragile frame of the mind of the minor son,” the High Court’s remand should stand, but interim contact could not be wholly blocked. The Court directed limited visitation rights for the father from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM every Sunday, with the child to attend accompanied by a caretaker who would remain on the premises but not in immediate company, and return to the mother at 6:00 PM. The Court clarified the arrangement would operate until the Family Court took final decisions and warned that obstruction by the mother could invite "necessary consequences in law, including coercive measures." The appeal was disposed of and pending applications stood dismissed; the Family Court was directed to conclude the matter within three months.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 358; Special Leave Petition (C) No.7261 of 2024 Case Title: Kiran Raju Penumacha v Tejuswini Chowdhury Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment