The Karnataka High Court was dealing with a plea of a father challenging family court order. (AI-generated Image)The Karnataka High Court allowed a father’s plea seeking expanded visitation with his four-year-old son. While upholding supervised visitation, it scrapped the Rs 5,000 per-visit payment, restrained grandparents from attending visits, and warned that the mother’s non-cooperation could weigh against her in the final custody decision.Justice P Shree Sudha was dealing with a plea of a father challenging the family court’s order, which denied him the unsupervised visit to his child and the directing to pay Rs 5,000 for each visitation towards the child’s conveyance and other expenses.“There is a direction to the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs 5,000 per visitation. As the respondent-wife herself has asked for a shift of the place from the coffee shop to the visitation room, she is not entitled to any conveyance, and it is hereby cancelled,” the court said on July 24.The court noted that despite living only 1.75 km apart, the mother repeatedly failed to bring the child for scheduled visitation without prior intimation, showing reluctance to facilitate the father’s access.Examining the father’s records, the court found repeated non-compliance with visitation orders by the mother and held that her conduct could be considered while deciding the pending custody petition.Father challenged restricted child visitationThe case arose from a custody dispute between an estranged couple over their four-year-old son. The father filed a petition before the Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking permanent custody of the child.Also Read | Father must support minor children even if mother earns, rules Karnataka High CourtDuring the pendency of the divorce case, he sought interim unsupervised custody for a few hours every weekend, stating that although the family court had granted him supervised visitation every Sunday, the mother often brought the child late, accompanied by her parents, and prevented him from interacting freely with the child, which he claimed was affecting the child’s mental well-being.Story continues below this adThe mother opposed the request, contending that the child was uncomfortable spending long hours with the father, became restless and cried during visits, and that the father had been negligent in the child’s upbringing and was not paying maintenance. She, therefore, sought modification of the existing visitation arrangement.The family court modified the visitation schedule by allowing the father to meet the child on the first and third Saturdays of every month in the family court’s visitation room under the mother’s supervision, permitted a birthday meeting, and directed the father to pay Rs 5,000 per visit towards the child’s conveyance and other expenses.Aggrieved by these directions, particularly the denial of unsupervised visitation and the payment condition, the father approached the high court. Appearing for the father, advocate Rashmi George contended that the mother left the matrimonial home with their child on June 30, 2022, without any reason, compelling him to file a petition seeking permanent custody. No Rs 5,000 fee for visitation: OrderThe court observed that the family court had already granted the father visitation rights and that its decision to permit visits on the first and third Saturdays of every month and on the child’s birthday was appropriate. Accordingly, it confirmed those directions.Story continues below this adThe court noted that records produced by the father showed the mother had failed to bring the child for visitation on several occasions without prior intimation and appeared reluctant to facilitate meetings between the father and the child. It observed that she had sought modification of the visitation order within a short time and had not complied with the earlier directions on multiple dates.\Also Read | Woman jail warder entitled to child care leave despite staff crunch: Chhattisgarh High CourtThe court held that both sets of grandparents should not be present during visitation sessions to ensure that the father and child could spend quality time together without unnecessary interference.On the issue of expenses, the court found that since the mother herself had requested shifting the visitation venue from the coffee shop to the family court’s visitation room, she could not claim Rs 5,000 per visitation as conveyance charges. It therefore set aside that direction.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More