The Orissa High Court recently upheld a father’s right to visit his child, emphasizing that a child of tender age needs the love, care, and presence of both parents and must not be treated as an “inanimate object” in the midst of parental conflict.

Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, while delivering the verdict, observed that in custody and visitation matters, the welfare of the child must remain the paramount consideration, rather than the individual viewpoints or grievances of either parent.

“A child is not an inanimate object to be tossed between warring parents. Except in extreme circumstances, a parent should not be denied the right to visit or contact their child, and strong reasons must justify such a denial,” the Court noted.

The case arose after the respondent-husband, while filing for divorce, sought interim custody of his son. The trial court deferred the custody decision until the final outcome of the divorce proceedings.

Subsequently, the husband filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking visitation rights. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher allowed his plea, prompting the wife to file a writ petition challenging this order.

The petitioner-wife opposed the order, arguing that:

• The respondent had not taken care of the child since 2012.

• He failed to provide interim maintenance or litigation expenses.

• She had single-handedly raised the child without any financial or emotional support from the father.

On these grounds, she contended that he should not be granted visitation rights.

Rejecting these objections, the Court ruled that visitation rights cannot be denied on technical grounds such as non-payment of maintenance. It reiterated that such rights are not meant to reward or penalize a parent, but to ensure the child’s well-being.

“A child has a basic human right to the love and affection of both parents. Parental disputes should not deprive a child of this,” the Court stated.

The Court clarified that unless there are compelling reasons to believe that contact with a parent would harm the child, access should not be denied.

Finding no legal error in the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the father’s visitation rights.