The couple's daughter, who was born in 2015, was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. (AI-generated image)The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a family court order denying physical visitation and interim custody to the father of a minor girl diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, noting that the daughter’s age, medical condition and special needs had been duly considered.A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Guru was hearing a plea by the child’s father, who had contended that the family court had erred in denying him physical visitation and restricted his access to a weekly video call with his daughter.“The impugned order demonstrates that while declining the prayer for interim custody/physical visitation, the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the age, medical condition and special needs of the child and has, as an interim measure, permitted interaction between the Appellant and the child through weekly video calls,” the June 2 order noted. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Guru denied the father interim custody of his minor daughter.Father denied visitationThe appellant (father) and the respondent (mother) are married and have a daughter who was born on May 1, 2015.The child has special needs and is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, along with developmental conditions.The minor daughter is currently living with her mother.The father had filed a case before the family court seeking custody of the minor child.While the case was pending with the court, he also sought interim custody and visitation rights.On May 14, 2026, the family court, Bilaspur, rejected the appellant’s request for interim custody/physical visitation.The family court directed that the father be permitted to interact with the minor child through video call once every week. Also Read | JEE Main 2026: Court rejects post-result plea to change from General to PwBD categoryChild needs both parents: FatherSenior Advocate NK Shukla, along with advocate Surya Kawalkar for the father, had submitted that the family court had failed to consider the paramount welfare of the minor child.It was contended that the minor had autism spectrum disorder and needed continuous emotional support, stability and meaningful interaction with both parents. The counsel on behalf of the father argued that the family court had failed to consider his daughter’s special needs and the bond she shared with him during their court interactions; he implied that the court had erred in denying him physical visitation and restricted his access to a weekly video call.It was argued that a limited video-call interaction could not be treated as a replacement for physical visitation, and additionally, there were no findings that declared him to be an unfit parent or that interaction with him would affect the child; the denial of regular visitation was unjustified.Story continues below this adThe father’s senior counsel submitted that he had been actively involved in his daughter’s upbringing and welfare, for which he was also living in Bilaspur closer to her, to make adequate arrangements for her care. The counsel concluded by stating the child deserved love and affection from both parents and meaningful visitation rights ought not to be denied, except for compelling reasons recorded by the court, and prayed for allowing the father’s appeal.Father’s prayer before courtSet aside the order passed by the family court, and grant him the custody of his minor daughter.Alternatively, grant him visitation rights twice a week for three hours and daily video calls for 45 minutesAllow the child to stay with him on weekends at his residence in Bilsapur.Direct the mother not to interfere, influence, or obstruct the visitations of the child or the video calls.Preserve and provide CCTV footage of the family court premises for the date May 14, 2026.Ensure that the mother does not block his contact on his daughter’s mobile phone.Permit him to send gifts, toys, books and study material to his minor daughter.‘No interim custody’The Chhattisgarh High Court noted that the issue was related to the custody of a minor child with special needs, and stands pending before the family court.The high court noted that the family court, while deciding the father’s plea for interim custody and physical visitation, had duly taken into account the age, medical condition and special needs of the child before rejecting the request.Story continues below this adIn view of the aforementioned facts, the family court had permitted the father to have an interaction with the child once a week through a video call, the court observed.The court held that the parties’ contentions were yet to be examined thoroughly with evidence, and at this interlocutory stage, therefore, it would be inappropriate to record any conclusive findings on the merits of the custody dispute.There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the exercise of discretion by the family court to warrant any interference in appellate jurisdiction, the court said.Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More