The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in matrimonial disputes, and that denying parental visitation based solely on the child’s expressed preference - without evaluating potential parental influence - is legally unsustainable. The Court directed the continuation of interim video call arrangements pending a fresh application for visitation, emphasizing that emotional bonds with both parents must be preserved.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, P. Uday Kumar Reddy, and the respondent, A. Vineela, were married and have three minor children: two daughters aged approximately 10 and 5 years, and a son aged approximately 3 years. The marriage has broken down, and the respondent has filed a Hindu Marriage Act petition under Section 13(1)(ia) seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The petitioner has filed a counter-claim. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the petitioner sought visitation rights to meet the children.
Key Facts
- The children have been residing with the respondent mother since the separation
- The petitioner, residing in Tirupati, filed I.A. No. 621 of 2025 in H.M.O.P. No. 106 of 2025 seeking visitation rights under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- The respondent opposed the application, alleging that the children are emotionally attached to her and hostile toward the petitioner
- The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, conducted an interaction with the elder daughter (aged 10) and declined visitation rights on the basis of her expressed unwillingness
- On 11.09.2025, the same court had granted interim relief permitting the petitioner to interact with the children via video call or telephone once a week
- The respondent allegedly failed to comply with the 11.09.2025 interim order
- The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 dismissed the visitation application without addressing the non-compliance with the interim video call order
Procedural History
- Date of marriage: Not specified in judgment
- Date of separation: Not specified in judgment
- 05.04.2025: H.M.O.P. No. 106 of 2025 filed by respondent seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty
- 15.07.2025: Petitioner filed I.A. No. 621 of 2025 seeking visitation rights
- 11.09.2025: Civil Judge granted interim order permitting weekly video/telephonic interaction
- 28.10.2025: Civil Judge dismissed I.A. No. 621 of 2025, relying on the elder child’s statement and denying visitation
- 27.11.2025: Petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3188 of 2025 before the High Court
- 27.02.2026: Arguments heard and reserved
- 06.05.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The denial of visitation violates the children’s right to emotional bonding with both parents. The elder child’s opinion may be influenced by the respondent. The interim video call order was ignored. Reliance placed on Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Gayatri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla to argue that child’s welfare requires balanced parental access.
Respondent’s Position: The impugned order was based on the child’s genuine aversion to the petitioner. The child’s preference is a valid factor under the welfare principle. No evidence of tutoring was presented by the petitioner. The order is in the child’s best interest.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Setting aside of the order dated 28.10.2025
- Grant of physical visitation rights to the children
- Enforcement of the interim video call order dated 11.09.2025
- Direction to the lower court to decide any fresh application expeditiously
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether the denial of visitation rights to a parent, based solely on the opinion of a minor child without evaluating potential parental influence or ensuring compliance with existing interim orders, violates the principle of the child’s welfare under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lower court erred in treating the child’s statement as conclusive without probing whether it was influenced by the respondent. He cited Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan to emphasize that children must not be deprived of parental affection due to marital discord. He further contended that the interim video call order dated 11.09.2025, which was already in force, was being willfully violated, and its continuation was essential to preserve the parent-child bond. He stressed that the child’s memory of the father must not be erased through prolonged absence.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that the lower court’s decision was based on a careful interaction with the elder child and reflected the child’s genuine emotional state. He relied on Gayatri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla to argue that the child’s preference, when clearly expressed and not coerced, is a legitimate factor in determining welfare. He maintained that the court’s discretion should not be disturbed absent clear illegality or perversity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the settled legal principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in matters of custody and visitation. It noted that while the opinion of a mature child may be taken into account, it cannot be the sole or decisive factor. The Court observed:
"Even if the same is taken as a valid reason, this Court sees no justification for vacating the order dated 11.09.2025. Serious disputes / differences between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, cannot lead to deprivation of the love and affection of both the parents to the children."
The Court emphasized that the lower court failed to assess whether the child’s aversion was self-formed or the result of parental alienation. It further noted that the interim video call order, which had been granted to maintain contact, was being disregarded - a fact that the lower court did not address. The Court held that such non-compliance undermines the child’s right to ongoing emotional connection with the father.
The Court also recognized that the lower court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application after six months. However, it found that leaving the child without any contact during this period would be detrimental. Therefore, the interim video call order must remain operative to prevent irreparable harm to the parent-child relationship.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
- The interim order dated 11.09.2025 permitting weekly video or telephonic interaction between the petitioner and the children shall remain in force until further order
- The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for physical visitation after six months from the date of this judgment
- The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, shall decide any such fresh application within two months of its filing, without being influenced by the impugned order
- No costs are awarded
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parental Influence Must Be Investigated
- Practitioners must now actively seek evidence of parental alienation when a child expresses reluctance to meet a parent
- Mere recording of a child’s statement without probing its origin is insufficient under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Courts must record reasons for accepting or rejecting a child’s preference, including whether the child was exposed to negative narratives
Interim Orders Are Not Optional
- Interim orders for communication (video calls, phone calls) are binding and must be enforced
- Failure to comply with such orders may be raised as a factor against the non-compliant parent in future custody hearings
- Courts should treat non-compliance as a breach of the child’s right to parental contact
Welfare Requires Continuous Contact
- Physical visitation is not the only form of welfare; sustained emotional contact is equally vital
- Six-month gaps in contact risk irreversible emotional harm, especially for young children
- Courts must prioritize continuity of relationship over procedural delays
