In a landmark win for fathers’ rights, the Supreme Court ruled that no mother can cut a father off from his child even across continents restoring a man’s emotional right to parenthood through bi-weekly video calls as digital visitation.
NEW DELHI: In a powerful reaffirmation of Parental Conflict, the Supreme Court of India has declared that a father’s love cannot be restricted by geography or maternal gatekeeping. The Supreme Court of India has ensured that a separated father remains a part of his son’s life even across borders. The Court directed that Manoj Dhankar, the father of a nine-year-old boy now living in Ireland with his mother Neeharika, shall be allowed to interact with his son via video conferencing every alternate Sunday for two hours.
Delivering the verdict in Manoj Dhankar v. Neeharika & Ors, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized that in custody disputes, the real issue is not the quarrel between parents, but the best interests and welfare of the child.
Manoj Dhankar and Neeharika married on 26 November 2012, and their son was born on 18 January 2016. The couple’s relationship soured when Neeharika left the matrimonial home in 2017, taking the child with her. She later filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion.
In 2018, Manoj sought custody of his son. The Family Court initially granted him limited visitation i.e., two Fridays a month at the child’s school. Later, the couple attempted a mutual consent divorce under Section 13B of the HMA, recording a custody understanding, but the settlement collapsed. The father then approached the Family Court again under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody. The interim order dated 03 February 2022, granted him weekend custody, but prohibited him from taking the child out of Rohtak, Haryana. When he allegedly violated this restriction, the Family Court dismissed his petition dated 27 March 2023.
On appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed his case on 04 October 2024, noting that the child had been with his mother since 2017, was settled, and that the father had disobeyed earlier orders. During this period, Neeharika moved to Ireland with the child, making physical visitation impossible. Manoj filed multiple applications for the child’s travel details, video calls, and eventual return but all were rejected.
When Manoj narrowed his request Before the Supreme Court that he did not seek custody, only virtual contact with his son the Bench acknowledged that “the conduct of both parents has not been ideal,” but “the child cannot become a casualty of this conflict.”
“Every child has a right to the affection of both parents. Even if parents live apart or in different countries, it is important for the child to maintain a relationship with both of them.”
The Court ruled that denying contact with the father would “deprive the child of love, guidance, and emotional support.”
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- The father shall interact with his son through video conferencing for two hours every alternate Sunday (10:00 AM–12:00 noon, Ireland time).
- Both parents must cooperate in good faith and avoid obstruction or hostility.
- Any logistical or technical issues shall be resolved mutually, keeping the child’s welfare paramount.
- The appeal was disposed of with the above directions.
- The Court reiterated that custody disputes are not about winning or losing but ensuring the child’s happiness and security.
- Even across continents, both parents should share emotional space in the child’s upbringing.
- Recognized video conferencing as a legitimate medium for parental bonding in cross-border custody situations.
Rejecting the notion that distance or foreign relocation can justify emotional separation, the Court ruled that “denying contact with the father would deprive the child of love, guidance, and emotional security”.
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections in This Case
| Law / Section | Provision / Meaning | Relevance in the Case |
| Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 | Custody of ward; court can decide welfare-based custody | Basis of the father’s custody petition |
| Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion | Cited in wife’s divorce petition |
| Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce by mutual consent | Parties attempted settlement under this section |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) | SC judgment on maintenance and parental obligations | Referenced for welfare principles |
| V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India (2010) | Custody dispute involving child abroad | Guided court on welfare of child settled overseas |
| Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (2017) | SC precedent allowing virtual visitation in cross-border cases | Influenced direction for video calls |
Case Title: Manoj Dhankar v. Neeharika & Ors.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Details
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 11332 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 25029 of 2025 @ Diary No. 60690 of 2024)
- Originating Case: FAO No. 2655 of 2023, Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Date of Judgment: September 2, 2025
- Statutory References:
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Sections 13(1)(ia), (ib), 13-B)
- Precedents: Ruchi Majoo (2011), V. Ravi Chandran (2010), Nithya Anand Raghavan (2017)
- Supreme Court Judgment:
- Custody unchanged — child to continue living with mother in Ireland.
- Father granted bi-weekly video contact to ensure emotional connection.
- Child’s welfare declared paramount — not the fault lines between parents.
- Modern solution adopted: virtual parenting upheld as legitimate under Indian law.
Child Custody Q&A: Everything You Should Know
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.