This father's Sunday visits were in a courthouse. The Supreme Court sent him to a mall.

A Sunday at the Mall, Not the Courtroom

Adarsh C.B. wanted to see his child. The Family Court in Kerala said he could — but only on Sundays, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., inside the court premises. The father approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. It did not interfere. So he came to the Supreme Court of India. The stakes were not just about a few hours on a Sunday. They were about whether a child should be forced to meet a parent in a place where cases are fought, where strangers wait, where the air smells of anxiety. The Supreme Court took one look at that arrangement and changed it.

The Order That Put a Father in a Courthouse

The dispute began in the Family Court, Kerala. On 10 November 2022, the Family Court granted Adarsh C.B. visitation rights. But with a catch: the father could meet his child only on Sundays, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., and only within the court premises. The mother was to bring the child there. The father would wait. The child would sit in a courtroom or a corridor. For five hours. Every Sunday.

The father was not satisfied. He moved an application before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, registered as OPFC No. 665/2022. On 10 January 2023, the High Court declined to interfere. It upheld the Family Court's arrangement. The father then approached the Supreme Court of India by way of Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2437/2023.

What the Supreme Court Saw That Others Missed

When the matter came before a Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Manoj Misra on 3 October 2023, the Court did not simply hear arguments and pass an order. It looked at the arrangement itself. The Bench observed that the environment in which visitation is exercised is material to the child's welfare. Repeated visitation in court premises, the Court held, is not in the interest of the child. The court environment is not conducive to the child's well-being.

This is not a technical point. It is a human one. A child visiting a parent inside a courthouse is not spending time with a father. It is spending time in a place of litigation. The child sees the parent in a setting of conflict. The parent cannot be natural. The child cannot be comfortable. The Court recognised that this arrangement, however well-intentioned, was harming the very relationship it was meant to preserve.

The New Arrangement: A Mall, Not a Courtroom

The Supreme Court modified the visitation rights. The new order is simple and practical. On Sundays, the mother shall hand over the child to the father at the entrance of RP Mall, Kollam, at 11 a.m. The father may exercise visitation until 2 p.m. He must return the child at the same spot. The hours were reduced from five to three. But the venue changed from a courtroom to a shopping mall.

Why a mall? Because it is neutral. It is public. It is safe. It is a place where a parent and child can walk, talk, eat, or simply sit. It is not a place where cases are heard. The Court did not specify what the father and child should do inside the mall. That is the point. The relationship is left to them.

The matter was not disposed of. The Court kept it pending and listed it on 31 October 2023 for further consideration. This means the arrangement is interim. The Court may revisit it. But the principle has been laid down.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Welfare of the Child

The Supreme Court did not cite any precedent in this order. There is no long list of cases. The ratio is short and sharp: when granting visitation rights, the environment in which visitation is exercised is material to the child's welfare. Repeated visitation in court premises is not in the interest of the child, as the court environment is not conducive to the child's well-being.

This is the welfare of the child principle in action. It is the constitutional touchstone in all custody and visitation matters. The Court applied it not as an abstract idea, but as a practical test. It asked: is this arrangement good for the child? The answer was no. So it changed the arrangement.

The Court also observed, in obiter, that the High Court rightly observed that the welfare of the child is to be kept in view by the Court in matters of this nature. This reaffirms the paramountcy of the child welfare doctrine. But the real innovation is the application: the Court did not just say the principle applies. It changed the venue to make the principle real.

THE PLAY: When drafting or challenging visitation orders, argue the venue. If the court premises are the only option, ask: is this really in the child's interest? The Supreme Court has now said it is not.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

For advocates who handle family law, this order is a tool. Every time a Family Court or High Court imposes a court-premises visitation condition, you can now cite this order. The Supreme Court has held that such an arrangement is not conducive to the child's well-being. You can ask for a neutral venue: a mall, a park, a library, a community centre. Anywhere that is not a courtroom.

For CFOs and founders who may be involved in custody disputes, the lesson is practical. If you are a parent seeking visitation, do not accept a court-premises arrangement. It is not good for your child. And the Supreme Court has now said so. If you are the other parent, do not insist on it. The Court will change it anyway.

The order also shows that the Supreme Court is willing to intervene in the details of visitation arrangements. It is not just about whether visitation is granted. It is about how it is exercised. The environment matters. The hours matter. The location matters. The Court will look at the specifics and modify them if they are not in the child's interest.

The Bottom Line

When the Supreme Court of India says a child should meet a parent at a mall, not a courtroom, it is not being casual. It is applying the welfare of the child principle to the real world. The next time a Family Court orders visitation inside its own premises, you have a Supreme Court order that says: that is not good for the child. Use it.