CASE : RUHI AGRAWAL AND ANR. Vs. NIMISH S. AGRAWAL (2025 INSC 99)
INTRODUCTION
The case of Ruhi Agrawal And Anr. Vs. Nimish S. Agrawal serves as one of the important precedent on the issue of child custody and visitation rights of the father. The case revolves around an appeal challenging the order passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 11.05.2022 dismissing the petition filed by the father (respondent) for the custody of the minor daughter and granting certain visitation rights, the division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasana B. Varale modified the visitation order passed by the High Court and held that a court appointed female commissioner will be present at the time of meeting. The need for such arrangement was felt because of the safety of the daughter as the petitioner posed serious allegations towards the respondent.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case discussed the custody of the 13 year old child who is living with her mother after her parents separation. Petitioner no. 1 (Ruhi Agrawal) and Respondent (Nimish S. Agrawal) married in 2007 and a daughter (Petitioner No. 2) was born out of their wedlock and the custody of this daughter is currently the issue of this case. The couple got separated in 2016 and after that the child was residing with her mother. Father/husband filed a petition before the Family Court, Durg seeking the custody of the child. The Family Court was pleased to dismiss the petition and allowed the visitation right. The father/husband filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the order passed by the family court. The father was allowed to visit the child on a fortnightly basis on the working Saturday as decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court. Hence, the wife/mother filed the present appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the High Court dated 11.05.2022.
JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
The father/husband Nimish S Agrawal filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court, Durg seeking the custody of his minor daughter. The Family Court dismissed the petition and granted some visitation rights. Aggrieved by the limited visiting rights, the respondent approached the High court seeking joint custody and extension of visiting rights. After reviewing the evidence, the High court gave sole custody to petitioner no.1 but extended his visiting rights. The following is the visiting schedule:
- Father and grandfather engage with the child by video call for one hour on every Saturday and Sunday and 5-10 minutes on other days.
- Both parents, father and mother shall procure smartphones for facilitating video calls.
- Since both parents live in the same district, father will be allowed to take the daughter on fortnightly basis hence petitioner no.1 would produce the child before family court, Durg at about 10:30-11:00 AM and respondent drop the child at about 4:30-5:00 PM.
- In long vacations covering more than two weeks the respondent is allowed to take her for 7 days and in doing so school curriculum would be placed towards family court ,Durg and court would decide the period.
- During festivals father may join the company for 1-2 hours and father would intimate the venue before the family court.
ISSUES RAISED
The issue was whether the impugned orders passed by the learned Family Court, Durg and the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh were not sustainable in law? I.e. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has rightly modified the visitation rights granted by the Family Court and whether it was in the best interest of the child?
ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS
The case deals with the custody of the child whose provisions are given under section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 which empowers the court to make orders related to custody and protection of the person or property of the minor. In this case, Petitioner no. 2 is a minor hindu girl. Thus, the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 will be also applicable in this case. According to section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the natural guardianship of a hindu girl first would be given to father and thereafter to mother. In this case, sole custody of the child was provided to the mother and some visitation rights was granted to the respondent i.e. father. Although joint custody was pleaded by the respondent, the Hon’ble High Court rejected this contention.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
The petitioner contended that she wanted to provide her child a conducive environment for her well being. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner argued for the cancellation of the visitation rights granted to the respondent. Though she had sole custody but father got some visitation rights. The counsel for the petitioners further argued on the challenge of visitation rights of respondent, they further contended that extending visitation rights may hinder her academic schedule and other activities. The petitioner contended against the respondent on various grounds such as abusive nature, criminal charges and many more to cancel the visitation rights granted and modified by the Hon’ble High Court. The petitioner also requested to be there in the meeting of the child and her father so that she may protect the child from any type of unsafe situations during the visitation.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT
The counsel for the respondent in his defence contended that the expanded visitation arrangements are in the best interest of the child. The counsel also argued that the mother had manipulated the view and mind of the child. The counsel for the respondent opposed the request by the mother to be present at the time of visitation meeting and argues that her presence may interrupt the father-child.
RULING
The apex court emphasized that mutual respect and collaboration is necessary for the well being of the child and smooth implementation of the visitation management. The Apex Court amended the impugned order of the High Court and continued visitation arrangements made by the High Court. The Supreme Court allowed the father or grandparents to video call with the child 5-10 minutes everyday and one hour every Saturday and Sunday. Mother has to produce the child on every fortnight Saturday before the Family Court between 10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. and from there father may take custody of the child for the entire day and return him to the court between 4:30 pm – 5:00 pm. Keeping in mind the safety of the child, the court directed that a female court appointed commissioner shall be present at all times during the visitation meetings. The meeting between the child and father will take place only in a public place only. The Apex Court further directed the Family Court at Durg to appoint the court commissioner within four weeks.
CONCLUSION
This case clarified the concept of child custody and visitation rights given to the father. The apex court modified the rulings of Hon’ble High Court to a certain extent and appointed the female commissioner to be present all the time during the visitation meetings. In essence, this arrangement made by the High Court and modified by the Apex court denotes a fair balance between the child’s need for stability, safety and welfare.
Author: Simra Saleem is a 1st year B.A. LLB (Hons) student, pursuing her graduation from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
Link to the order: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/16784/16784_2022_6_1501_58743_Judgement_22-Jan-2025.pdf
Wish to read similar articles? Click the link to read more: https://jpassociates.co.in/cheque-bounce-and-legal-remedies/
