The Karnataka High Court noted in its order that the family court has taken note of the age of the child and the need to ensure that she is not subjected to prolonged separation from the primary caregiver. (Image generated using AI)The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a four-year-old’s mother, questioning a family court order which granted her estranged husband unsupervised visitation rights with the daughter for two days a month for three hours.“This court is of the considered view that the arrangement made by the family court subserves the welfare of the minor child and does not call for interference,” Justice Dr K Manmadha Rao said.In April 2024, on an application made by the father, the family court had granted visitation rights from 10 am to 11 am on alternate Sundays under the supervision of the petitioner/mother, along with video call access for 15 minutes every Saturday between 5 pm and 6 pm. By a subsequent order passed in October 2024, the visitation timing was modified to 11 am to 12 pm at a mall in the presence of the mother.Following this, the father filed another application, which was allowed in March 2025, granting visitation rights twice a month from 10 am to 6 pm. The estranged wife sought a review of the order before the family court, during which the father agreed that he had no objection to the reduction of visitation hours, following which the impugned order came to be passed.Also Read | ‘Fluent in English’: Kerala High Court finds 6-year-old ‘confined’, out of school, sends him back to UK‘Leaving child with father may affect her well-being’Advocate Arun Govindaraj, appearing for the petitioner (mother), argued that the family court failed to consider the relevant circumstances pertaining to the child’s welfare and overlooked the fact that the minor child was allegedly abandoned by the father when she was less than two years old and has had no meaningful access to him thereafter.Further, it was said that leaving the child in the unsupervised company of the respondent, who is not accustomed to her care, may adversely affect her well-being.Advocate Prateek Rath, appearing for the father, contended that the family court order was passed keeping in view the minor child’s welfare and ensured continued parental access. Moreover, appropriate, unsupervised interaction with both parents is essential for the emotional and psychological development of the child, he submitted.Story continues below this ad‘Family court best suited to monitor arrangement’The bench noted in its order that the family court has taken note of the tender age of the minor child and the need to ensure that the child is not subjected to prolonged separation from the primary caregiver.It then held in the order, “The modification, therefore, is not arbitrary, but is based on relevant considerations germane to the welfare of the child and the consensus emerging between the parties on the aspect of duration.”The bench said, “The contention of the petitioner that unsupervised visitation ought not to have been granted cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, particularly when the family court has consciously reduced the duration of visitation, and the respondent has expressed willingness to abide by such restriction.”The order added, “The arrangement, as it stands, cannot be said to be detrimental to the welfare of the minor child.”Story continues below this adDismissing the petition, the court further said, “It is always open to the petitioner to approach the family court seeking appropriate modification, supervision or clarification, in the event of any adverse development or difficulty in implementing the visitation arrangement. The family court, being in seisin of the main proceedings, is best suited to monitor and regulate such interim arrangements in the interest of the minor child.”