Courtroom visitations seemed safe. The Supreme Court said they harm the child.

A Sunday at the Mall, Not the Courtroom

Adarsh C.B. wanted to see his child. The Family Court in Kollam said yes — but only on Sundays, from 11 AM to 4 PM, and only inside the court premises. The father was unhappy. The Kerala High Court saw no reason to change that. So Adarsh C.B. approached the Supreme Court of India. The stakes were simple: a father’s right to spend time with his child, and a child’s right to a visitation environment that didn’t feel like a legal proceeding. The High Court missed it. The Supreme Court didn’t.

What the Family Court Ordered

The dispute began in the Family Court, Kollam. The court granted the petitioner-father visitation rights with his child on Sundays. But the court imposed a condition: the visits would take place within the court premises, from 11 AM to 4 PM. The rationale was likely to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. But the father saw a problem. A child, week after week, being brought to a courtroom to meet a parent — that wasn’t a childhood. That was a procedure. A procedure dressed up as a right.

The father moved an application before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. He wanted the venue changed. The High Court, by order dated 10 January 2023 in OPFC No. 665/2022, declined to interfere. The visitation arrangement stayed. The father then approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India — the special leave petition jurisdiction. And that was the right call.

The Supreme Court’s First Question

When the matter came up before a Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Manoj Misra on 3 October 2023, the Court did not spend time on legal technicalities. It looked at the practical reality. A child being brought to court premises every Sunday to meet a parent — was that in the child’s welfare? The Court thought: obviously not.

The Bench observed that the welfare of the child is to be kept in view by the Court in matters of this nature, as rightly observed by the High Court. But then it added something the High Court had missed: the environment in which visitation is exercised is a material consideration. Repeated visitation in court premises is not in the interest of the child.

That was the turning point. The Court did not say the father was wrong to seek visitation. It said the venue was wrong. A simple shift, a world of difference.

The Mall Solution

The Supreme Court modified the visitation arrangement on an interim basis. It changed the venue from the court premises to RP Mall, Kollam, Kerala. The hours were reduced from 11 AM–4 PM to 11 AM–2 PM on Sundays. The mother would hand over the child at the entrance of the mall at 11 AM. The father could take the child inside the mall and exercise visitation rights until 2 PM. At 2 PM, the child would be returned at the same spot.

The order was precise. The Court directed that the mother shall make over interim custody of the child to the petitioner-father at the entrance of RP Mall, Kollam at 11:00 AM on Sundays. The father may take the child to the mall and exercise visitation rights till 2:00 PM. Custody shall be returned at the same spot at 2:00 PM. The matter was listed for further consideration on 31 October 2023.

No elaborate legal reasoning. No citation of precedents. Just a practical, child-centric solution. A mall, not a courtroom.

What the Court Really Decided

The ratio decidendi in this judgment is narrow but significant. When granting visitation rights to a non-custodial parent, the environment in which visitation is exercised is a material consideration. Repeated visitation in court premises is not in the interest of the child, as the setting of visitation impacts the child’s welfare.

This is not a new principle. Indian courts have long held that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody and visitation disputes. What this judgment does is apply that principle to the specific question of venue. A courtroom is not a neutral space for a child. It is a place of authority, formality, and often tension. A mall, by contrast, is a place of normalcy. A child can walk, talk, eat, play — be a child. No robes, no gavels, no anxiety.

The Court did not disturb the Family Court’s order on the substance of visitation rights. It only altered the venue and hours. The father still gets to see his child every Sunday. The mother still hands over the child. But now, the child does not have to enter a courtroom to see a parent. That is the point.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates handling custody and visitation disputes, this judgment offers a practical tool. If a Family Court or High Court imposes a visitation venue that is not conducive to the child’s welfare — such as court premises, police stations, or other institutional settings — you can argue that the venue itself violates the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court has now held that the environment of visitation is a material consideration. Use it.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is different. This judgment is a reminder that the best solutions are often the simplest. The Supreme Court did not need a constitutional bench, a dozen precedents, or a lengthy judgment to solve this problem. It asked one question: is this good for the child? The answer was no. So it changed the venue to a mall. That is the kind of practical, outcome-oriented thinking that works in any field. No jargon. No overthinking.

THE PLAY: When challenging a visitation order, argue that the venue of visitation is a material consideration affecting the child’s welfare — and propose a neutral, child-friendly alternative.

The Bigger Picture

This judgment is also a commentary on how courts handle family disputes. The Family Court, Kollam, likely imposed the court-premises condition to avoid conflict between the parents. But the solution created a new problem: the child was being brought to a courtroom every week. The High Court did not see the problem. The Supreme Court did. And it fixed it.

The judgment is interim — the matter is still pending for further consideration. But the interim order is already a final statement on the principle. The Court has made it clear that visitation arrangements must be designed around the child, not around the convenience of the court or the anxieties of the parents. That is a strong message.

The obiter dictum in the judgment — that the welfare of the child is to be kept in view by the Court in matters of this nature — reaffirms a well-established principle. But the ratio goes further: the environment of visitation is a material consideration. That is the new takeaway. Keep it in your arsenal.

What This Means for You

If you are an advocate handling a custody or visitation case, read the Family Court order carefully. If the venue is a courtroom, a police station, or any institutional setting, you have a ground to challenge it. Cite Adarsh C.B. v. Aswathy Sidharthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 847. Argue that the environment of visitation impacts the child’s welfare. Propose a neutral venue — a mall, a park, a library, a community centre. The Supreme Court has shown that such solutions are not only permissible but preferred. And frankly, they are better.

If you are a parent in a custody dispute, this judgment gives you a practical argument. You do not have to fight over whether visitation should happen. You can fight over where it should happen. And you can win that fight by focusing on the child’s welfare, not your own grievances. That is the legal way, and the human way.

The bottom line: When the Supreme Court says a child should visit a parent at a mall instead of a courtroom, it is not being casual — it is being child-centric. That is the standard every court should apply. And now, it has the authority to back it up.