Introduction:
In a compassionate yet legally robust ruling, the Orissa High Court in Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 10091 of 2025, decided on October 10, 2025), delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, underscored that the visitation rights of parents are a vital component of the child’s welfare and emotional development. The Court quashed an order of the Family Court, Cuttack, which had unjustly denied the biological father the right to meet his son while the custody dispute was still pending. The judgment reaffirmed that visitation rights cannot be viewed through the narrow prism of convenience or parental conflict but must be decided with the sole aim of ensuring the best interest of the child. The petitioner-father sought restoration of his right to communicate and interact with his son, which was previously allowed under mutual agreement but was later obstructed by the mother. The Court, relying on established precedents including Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) and Manjusha Singhania v. Nimish Singhania (2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 74), reiterated that children are not chattels and their emotional needs demand sustained contact with both parents, regardless of parental disputes or remarriage.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Father):
The petitioner-husband, represented by Advocate Mrs. Suman Modi, presented a compelling case highlighting that the Family Court’s refusal to grant visitation rights was arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to settled principles of guardianship law. The petitioner and the respondent-wife were married in 2011 and had two children—a daughter and a son. After a period of marital discord and eventual separation, both parties mutually agreed that the daughter would reside with the mother while the son would remain in the father’s custody. Both parents were granted reciprocal visitation rights to maintain emotional continuity for the children. However, in early 2024, the respondent-wife, under the pretext of the son’s illness, took him away from school and never returned him to his father, thereby violating the mutual understanding and effectively alienating the child from his biological father.
The petitioner argued that after the wife remarried an elderly man who already had three children, the welfare and emotional needs of their son were compromised. The boy, who had been under the father’s care, was suddenly uprooted and placed in a new family environment without adequate consideration of his psychological wellbeing. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of his son and an interim plea for visitation and communication rights. The Family Court, however, denied the interim relief, citing the absence of a neutral meeting venue and fear of potential “untoward incidents.” The petitioner argued that such reasoning was not only legally untenable but also violative of his fundamental right to parenthood.
The counsel emphasized that the right of a natural father to visit and maintain a relationship with his minor son cannot be denied merely because the parents are estranged. She relied on the principle laid down in Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015) and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020), wherein the Supreme Court held that visitation rights are integral to the welfare of the child and should not be denied unless there is a demonstrable threat to the child’s safety or wellbeing. The petitioner further submitted that the Family Court’s order was passed in complete disregard of the child’s best interests and without any basis in law or fact.
It was also brought to the Court’s attention that despite the High Court’s interim order dated 16.05.2025 allowing the petitioner to communicate with his son through phone or WhatsApp calls once daily, such contact lasted barely ten days before the mother allegedly manipulated and coached the child to avoid communication with his father. The petitioner submitted an affidavit detailing how his son was being tutored to fear or reject him and even address him as “uncle.” He urged the High Court to restore his right to meet his child and ensure that the child is not alienated due to the influence of the mother and her second husband.
Arguments of the Respondent (Mother):
The opposite party-wife, represented by Advocate Mr. Kirtan Dang, resisted the petition, contending that the child’s emotional stability would be disturbed if visitation was allowed. She argued that since the child had been living with her for several months, any forced or court-ordered visitation might cause psychological distress to him. The counsel further claimed that the Family Court rightly denied visitation in the absence of a neutral, safe environment to facilitate such meetings. She justified her actions of taking the son under her care by asserting that the father’s behavior and temper were intimidating, and the child had himself expressed reluctance to meet his father.
The respondent’s counsel also sought to invoke the principle of the child’s expressed preference, arguing that during the in-camera interaction, the child appeared apprehensive of his father and addressed him as “uncle,” suggesting lack of emotional connection. The wife maintained that she was better positioned to care for both children, as the father had no experience managing the emotional and educational needs of a growing boy. Additionally, it was argued that since the petitioner remained unmarried, his capacity to provide a nurturing family environment was questionable.
However, these arguments failed to convince the Court, as Justice Mishra found them rooted more in personal animosity than genuine concern for the child’s welfare. The Court noted that the wife’s remarriage and her husband’s existing responsibilities toward his three children could reasonably affect the attention and care available to the petitioner’s son. Moreover, the attempt to sever all contact between the child and his father appeared deliberate and manipulative, undermining the child’s emotional balance.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, in a detailed and empathetic judgment, criticized the Family Court’s approach as contrary to both law and logic. The Court held that visitation rights are not a matter of convenience but a fundamental element in ensuring the emotional well-being of the child. Justice Mishra observed that “visitation right is an important right of either of the parents to see the children born out of their wedlock, and while deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration.”
The Court reiterated the settled principle that the welfare of the child is the supreme consideration in custody and visitation matters. In this regard, the Court cited Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020), wherein the Supreme Court held that both parents have equal rights to love and companionship of their child, and denial of visitation without sufficient justification causes long-term emotional harm to the child. The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Manjusha Singhania v. Nimish Singhania, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 74, which observed that “children are not inanimate objects to be tossed between parents” and that both parents play irreplaceable roles in a child’s upbringing.
During the in-chamber interaction, the Court noted that the minor child appeared to be frightened of his father and called him “uncle,” while addressing his stepfather as “father.” Justice Mishra found this to be a clear sign of tutoring and manipulation by the mother. The Court remarked that it was unfortunate for a natural father to be alienated in such a manner and that such behavior by the mother was detrimental to the child’s psychological health. The Court emphasized that “a parent’s right to meet and interact with his or her child is not subordinate to the ego of the other spouse but must be guided by what serves the child’s welfare.”
The Bench observed that the petitioner had not remarried and continued to show deep affection and concern for his children, while the mother’s remarriage into a family already burdened with other dependents might have diluted her focus on the petitioner’s son. Considering these circumstances, the Court found the Family Court’s denial of visitation unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to law.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Family Court’s order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The Family Court was directed to consult both parties and their counsels to determine an appropriate venue, frequency, and duration for visitation. It was also instructed to permit the father to maintain telephonic and WhatsApp communication with his son throughout the custody proceedings. Justice Mishra instructed that any future allegations of tutoring or interference with the father-son relationship must be dealt with seriously, as such behavior undermines not only parental rights but also the child’s long-term emotional health.
Finally, Justice Mishra stressed that while courts must be sensitive to the feelings of both parents, the child’s welfare remains the ultimate consideration. Emotional alienation of one parent due to hostility from the other is never in the child’s best interest. The Court concluded that denial of visitation to a natural father, especially without any evidence of threat or harm to the child, amounts to denial of both natural justice and emotional justice.