The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of the child’s welfare in visitation arrangements, modifying an order that required children to travel long distances for access with their mother. In a pragmatic and child-centered ruling, the Court shifted the venue of supervised visitation from Jaisingpur to Rahata, recognizing the disruption to the children’s education and the logistical burden on the custodial parent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Applicants, Mahendra Arvind Rane and others, are the custodial parents of two minor children. The Respondent, the biological mother of the children, was granted visitation rights by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur, under proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Applicants do not contest the Respondent’s right to visitation but challenge the designated location - Jaisingpur - as impractical and detrimental to the children’s well-being.
Key Facts
- The Applicants and minor children reside in Shirdi, approximately 150 kilometers from Jaisingpur
- The Respondent resides in Jaisingpur but is actively participating in divorce proceedings pending before the Court at Rahata
- The children are enrolled in school in Shirdi and are in the midst of their academic year
- On 2nd March 2026, the Bombay High Court had previously directed the Applicants to bring the children to Rahata for a supervised meeting with the Respondent, which was successfully conducted
- The Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur, issued the impugned order granting visitation rights but mandated that all visits occur before the Court at Jaisingpur
- The Applicants filed this revision application solely to challenge the venue of visitation, not the right itself
Procedural History
- Date of impugned order: Undated, but issued prior to 9th July 2026 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur
- Date of filing of revision application: Prior to 9th July 2026
- 2nd March 2026: Bombay High Court directed production of children at Rahata Court for visitation
- 9th July 2026: Hearing and judgment delivered by Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J., Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur
Relief Sought
The Applicants sought modification of the visitation venue from Jaisingpur to Rahata, citing the substantial distance, disruption to the children’s education, and the fact that the Respondent is already regularly present at Rahata for divorce proceedings. They also requested that the Respondent bear her own travel costs, though later conceded to the Respondent’s proposal to share expenses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the venue for supervised visitation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must be rigidly fixed at the court where the DV proceedings are pending, or whether the court may modify the location to prioritize the child’s welfare, convenience, and educational continuity.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the Applicants argued that requiring the children to travel from Shirdi to Jaisingpur on a recurring basis would cause undue hardship, disrupt their schooling, and impose significant emotional and logistical strain. They emphasized that the Respondent was already attending proceedings at Rahata Court, making it a more logical, accessible, and child-friendly venue. The Applicants cited the principle of best interests of the child as paramount under Section 26 of the DV Act and Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The Respondent, through her counsel, did not oppose the change in venue. She affirmed her willingness to travel to Rahata on the first and third Saturdays of every month for visitation, and accepted the Applicants’ offer to bear her travel expenses from Jaisingpur to Rahata. Her position was cooperative and aligned with the child’s welfare.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the DV proceedings are pending before the Court at Jaisingpur, the venue for visitation is not statutorily mandated to be co-located with the DV court. The primary consideration must be the welfare of the minor children, as consistently upheld in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Gaurav Nagpal v. Sunita Nagpal.
"The convenience of the custodial parent and the educational stability of the child cannot be subordinated to the procedural convenience of the court where the DV petition is pending."
The Court noted that the Respondent had already demonstrated her commitment to the children’s access by attending the earlier visitation at Rahata on 2nd March 2026, which proceeded without incident. The distance between Shirdi and Jaisingpur (approximately 150 km) versus Shirdi and Rahata (approximately 40 km) rendered Rahata a significantly more reasonable location. The Court further emphasized that the Respondent’s presence at Rahata for divorce proceedings made coordination of visitation logistically seamless.
The Court rejected the notion that the DV court’s jurisdiction dictates the visitation venue, holding instead that the family court’s overarching duty is to minimize trauma and maximize accessibility for the child.
The Verdict
The revision application was allowed. The impugned order was modified to provide that visitation shall now take place before the Court at Rahata, on the first and third Saturdays of every month. The Applicants shall produce the minor children at Rahata Court on the scheduled dates. The Applicants shall bear the travel expenses of the Respondent from Jaisingpur to Rahata for each visit. The Applicants are permitted to amend the prayer clause in the petition within one week.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Venue for Visitation Is Not Statutorily Fixed
- Practitioners must argue that the location of visitation under the DV Act is discretionary and must be determined by the child’s best interests, not the court’s territorial jurisdiction
- Courts may shift visitation venues to locations closer to the child’s residence or where other family proceedings are pending
- The mere pendency of a DV case does not mandate that visitation occur at that court’s premises
Child’s Education and Routine Are Paramount
- Disruption to schooling is a legally recognized harm in custody and access matters
- Courts must evaluate travel time, frequency of visits, and impact on academic performance when determining visitation logistics
- Evidence of school attendance, report cards, or teacher statements should be submitted to support claims of educational disruption
Cooperation Reduces Litigation Burden
- Willingness of the non-custodial parent to accommodate reasonable changes (e.g., travel to a closer venue) strengthens their position
- Offers to share travel costs can be strategically used to demonstrate good faith and facilitate judicial approval
- Courts favor cooperative arrangements that reduce conflict and prioritize the child’s stability
