Toddler's 300-km Sunday trip to see dad stopped by Supreme Court

```html

Every Sunday, a 2-year-old girl was driven 150 km to meet her father. The Supreme Court just said: that ends now.

She was born in June 2022. Two months later, her parents—both doctors—separated. By the time she was a toddler, she was spending every Sunday in a car, travelling 300 km round trip between Madurai and Karur. In a December 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court stopped this routine. Not because the father lost his right to see his daughter. But because a child's welfare, the court said, is not negotiable—not even for a parent's entitlement.

Two months old when it began

The couple's story started like many others. Two doctors married. A daughter born in June 2022. Then, within months, the mother alleged domestic violence and attempted murder by the father. She filed for divorce in June 2023 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (a provision that allows divorce on grounds of cruelty). The father wanted to see his child during the divorce proceedings. He filed an application under Section 26 of the same Act (which lets courts decide custody and visitation matters while a divorce case is pending).

The Family Court in Tamil Nadu granted the father visitation rights. Every Sunday. At Karur. The problem: Karur is 150 km from Madurai, where the mother and child lived. A 300 km round trip. Every week. For a toddler. The Family Court's order paper, a thin sheaf of typed pages, made no mention of the burden this journey would place on a child barely old enough to sit upright in a car seat. In the courtroom later, the mother's counsel would count on his fingers—one hundred and fifty kilometres there, one hundred and fifty back—as the judge leaned forward, listening.

The High Court said yes, with tweaks

The mother challenged the Family Court's order in the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench. She argued that the distance was harmful to the child. The High Court agreed with the father's right to visitation but slightly modified the hours. It changed the timing but not the venue. The 300 km Sunday trip continued. The mother then approached the Supreme Court. Her argument was simple: a 2-year-old child cannot be expected to travel 150 km each way every week. The journey itself, she said, was detrimental to the child's health and wellbeing.

What the Supreme Court saw

The bench—Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale—looked at the facts. A toddler. A 300 km round trip. Every Sunday. The courtroom fell silent as the mother's counsel detailed the logistics: the 150 km highway marker near Karur, the child's car seat, the four-hour ordeal that consumed half the visitation window. The court did not deny the father's right to visitation. It did something more precise: it shifted the venue to Madurai, the child's city.

The court held that while a father, as a natural guardian, cannot be denied visitation rights, such rights cannot override the best interest and welfare of the child. The child's health and wellbeing are paramount and must take precedence over parental entitlements when determining the modalities of visitation.

This is the core of the judgment: parental rights exist, but they bend. They bend to the child's age. To the child's health. To the child's need for stability.

Why the venue mattered

The court also said something about how courts should decide visitation venues. Orders granting visitation, the bench observed, must provide cogent reasons for the choice of venue. Where the designated venue imposes undue travel burden on a child of tender age, the venue must be modified to the child's place of residence to protect the child's health and wellbeing.

This is not a small point. Family courts across India routinely designate venues for visitation—often the father's city, sometimes a neutral location. The Supreme Court has now made clear: if the venue forces a young child into excessive travel, the court must explain why that venue was chosen. And if it cannot, the venue shifts to the child's home city.

The new Sunday routine

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order. The father will now visit his daughter every Sunday from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. The visits will take place in Madurai—in a public park or temple premises. The mother must be present at approximately 10 feet distance. The child will be handed over at the place of visit and returned by 2:00 PM. In a temple courtyard, perhaps, the stone floor cool underfoot, the child might play in the shade of a pillar while the father watches from a measured distance. In a public park, the banyan tree's branches might shelter the small family ritual.

The court also noted that matrimonial disputes and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child's right to have care, company, and affection of both parents. The father's right to visitation remained intact. What changed was the burden on the child.

What this means for family courts

This judgment is a practical guide for every family court handling visitation disputes. The principle is straightforward: the child's welfare is the first consideration, not the parent's convenience. When a court decides where visitation should happen, it must consider the child's age, the distance involved, and the impact of travel on the child's health. If the venue imposes an undue burden, the court must either explain why it is necessary or change the venue.

The case, Sugirtha v. Gowtham, arose from a divorce petition filed in June 2023 before a Family Court in Tamil Nadu. The father's application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the provision governing custody during proceedings) had been granted by the Family Court with Karur as the venue. The High Court upheld that order with modified timings. The Supreme Court, hearing the civil appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18240 of 2024, partly allowed the appeal on December 20, 2024. The citation is 2024 INSC 1036.

The court did not disturb the divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) (the cruelty ground). Those continue. What the Supreme Court settled was the narrow but critical question of where a toddler should meet her father.

The procedural journey

The case travelled through three tiers. First, the Family Court in Tamil Nadu allowed the father's visitation application in June 2023. Then, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench dismissed the mother's appeal on March 21, 2024, with a slight modification to the timing. Finally, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal on December 20, 2024, shifting the venue to Madurai.

At each stage, the core tension remained the same: the father's right to see his child versus the child's right not to be harmed by the manner of visitation. The Supreme Court resolved it by holding that the child's welfare is paramount—a principle that sounds simple but has profound implications for how visitation orders are crafted.

The broader message

This judgment sends a clear signal to all family courts: when you order visitation, think about the child. Think about the distance. Think about the age. Think about the travel time. A 300 km round trip for a 2-year-old is not a minor inconvenience. It is a burden that can affect the child's health, sleep, feeding schedule, and emotional stability. The court recognised that the child's wellbeing must come first, even when both parents have legitimate claims.

The judgment also reaffirms that grave allegations between parents—domestic violence, attempted murder—should not become barriers to a child's right to affection from both parents. The father's visitation right was preserved. What changed was the logistics, shaped around the child's needs.

THE PLAY: When seeking or opposing a visitation order, lead with the child's age and the travel burden—courts must now give cogent reasons for any venue that forces a young child into excessive travel.

The walk-off

The 300 km Sunday trip is over. The child stays in Madurai. The father still visits. The court ended where it began: with a toddler, a car ride, and a question of what a child can bear. The answer, now written into the law, is that a child should not have to bear what a court can fix.

```