Introduction:

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in the case of Parvez Ahmad Khan vs Areeb (2025), has directed that practitioners and litigants must refrain from using the term “divorcee” in petitions or applications while referring to women. The court emphasised that such terminology if allowed, would require a parallel term like “divorcer” for men, which is an unacceptable practice. A bench led by Justice Vinod Chatterji Kaul made these remarks while dismissing a review petition, observing that suffixing “divorcee” to a woman’s name is not only improper but also a reflection of prejudice and character judgment. The court also upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the petitioner’s visitation rights, ruling that the child’s welfare is of utmost importance.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by advocate I. Sofi argued that the trial court had erred in modifying the visitation rights without hearing him, thus violating the principles of natural justice. He contended that the original order allowing him to meet the child twice a month should have remained unchanged, as the modifications were arbitrary and unjustified. Further, he challenged the non-appearance of the respondents in the case, arguing that their absence should have been considered in his favour. On the other hand, the respondent did not appear, but the trial court’s findings revealed that the child was unwilling to meet the petitioner, crying and demonstrating fear during interactions. The court held that forcing a child into visitation against their will could have long-term psychological effects, making it necessary to modify the order to protect the child’s best interests.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court dismissed the review petition as misconceived and observed that the trial court had rightfully considered the welfare of the child before modifying the visitation rights. The court held that the child’s reluctance to meet the petitioner justified reducing the frequency of visitation from twice a month to once a month. Additionally, the court condemned the petitioner’s act of labelling the respondent as a “divorcee” in the cause title, calling it an unfair practice that should not only be discouraged but eliminated. The court directed the Registrar Judicial to present the judgment before the Chief Justice for issuing a circular to enforce this directive in all legal proceedings. Finally, the court imposed a fine of ₹20,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited within a month, further solidifying the stance that such derogatory practices and unwarranted petitions should not be entertained.