{"id":370,"date":"2025-10-06T11:50:27","date_gmt":"2025-10-06T06:20:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=370"},"modified":"2025-10-06T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2025-10-06T05:57:00","slug":"no-child-should-be-a-casualty-of-parental-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/no-child-should-be-a-casualty-of-parental-conflict\/","title":{"rendered":"Custody Battle | No Child Should Be a Casualty of Parental Conflict: Supreme Court Upholds Father\u2019s Right to Virtual Visitation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a landmark win for fathers\u2019 rights, the Supreme Court ruled that no mother can cut a father off from his child even across continents restoring a man\u2019s emotional right to parenthood through bi-weekly video calls as digital visitation.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

NEW DELHI:<\/strong> In a powerful reaffirmation of Parental Conflict, the Supreme Court of India has declared that a father\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manoj Dhankar and Neeharika married on 26 November 2012, and their son was born on 18 January 2016. The couple\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s travel details, video calls, and eventual return but all were rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Supreme<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

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 \u201cthe conduct of both parents has not been ideal,\u201d but \u201cthe child cannot become a casualty of this conflict.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cEvery 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court ruled that denying contact with the father would \u201cdeprive the child of love, guidance, and emotional support.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n