Dad gets to see kid at mall, not court, says Supreme Court

The Family Court said: visit your child inside the court premises. The Supreme Court said: take him to the mall instead.

On a Sunday morning in Kollam, a father stood at the entrance of RP Mall waiting for his son. Not for a movie. Not for lunch. For a court-ordered visitation that the Supreme Court had moved from a courtroom to a shopping centre — because a child, the Court ruled, should not grow up thinking the only place to meet a parent is where cases are heard.

The question was simple: When a Family Court grants a father visitation rights, can it force him to exercise those rights only inside the court premises — or must the venue itself serve the child's welfare?

When the Family Court drew a circle around itself

The parents, Adarsh C.B. and Aswathy Sidharthan, were locked in a custody dispute. The Family Court passed an order: the father could visit the child every Sunday from 11 AM to 4 PM — but only within the court premises.

For five hours every week, a child would walk into a building designed for litigation, sit in corridors where cases are argued, and meet a parent under the gaze of court staff.

The father found this arrangement unnatural. He approached the Kerala High Court, arguing that the venue was harmful to the child's development. The High Court declined to interfere. The father then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Why a courtroom is no place for a child

The Supreme Court bench — Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Manoj Misra — heard the petition for special leave to appeal (a request for the Supreme Court to hear a case that lower courts have already decided). The father's counsel argued that making a child repeatedly visit court premises was neither healthy nor conducive to the child's welfare. The environment, they said, was intimidating, formal, and entirely unsuitable for a parent-child relationship to develop naturally.

The Court agreed. It invoked the paramountcy of child welfare — the legal principle that in any decision involving a child, the child's best interest must come first, above the convenience of courts or the preferences of parents. The bench observed that visitation should happen in a space where the child feels safe, relaxed, and able to bond with the parent without the shadow of legal proceedings.

The mall as a courtroom

Instead of merely criticising the Family Court's order, the Supreme Court offered a practical alternative. It directed that the mother hand over the child to the father at the entrance of RP Mall, Kollam, at 11 AM on Sundays. The father could take the child into the mall and spend time there until 2 PM. At 2 PM, the child would be returned to the mother at the same spot.

The Court reduced the visitation duration from five hours to three hours — but changed the venue entirely. The reasoning was clear: a mall is a neutral, public, child-friendly space. It has food courts, play areas, and a relaxed atmosphere. A child can eat, walk, talk, and laugh with a parent without feeling like they are in a legal proceeding.

The Court kept the matter pending for further consideration — the visitation arrangement is an interim measure until a final order is passed.

What the Court's reasoning means for every custody case

The ratio decidendi (the court's central reasoning) is worth noting: when granting visitation rights, the environment in which the visitation is exercised matters. Repeated visitation in court premises is not in the interest of the child, and a more child-friendly venue should be preferred.

This is not a radical departure from existing law — the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which governs custody disputes, already prioritises the child's welfare. But the Supreme Court's application here is striking because it treated the venue itself as a component of welfare. A court cannot simply say "you may visit the child" and then confine that visit to its own building. The venue must serve the child, not the court's convenience.

THE PLAY: When drafting visitation terms, propose a specific child-friendly venue outside court premises — and cite Adarsh C.B. v. Aswathy Sidharthan to argue that the court must consider the child's environment, not just the parent's right.

A child met his father at a mall entrance on a Sunday. No judge watched. No files were stamped. Just a parent and a child, learning to be a family again.