Ruhi Agrawal vs. Nimish S. Agrawal
Citation: 2025 INSC 99; SLP (Civil) No. 10349/2022
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Background
This case centers on the custody and visitation rights of a 13-year-old daughter following the separation of her parents, Ruhi Agrawal and Nimish S. Agrawal, who married in 2007 and separated in 2016. The child had been residing with her mother, who retained sole custody after the Family Court’s order. The father was granted limited visitation, which he contested before the Chhattisgarh High Court, seeking joint custody or expanded visitation rights. The High Court allowed fortnightly physical meetings, shared vacation time, and regular video calls, but maintained sole custody with the mother.
Ruhi Agrawal challenged this arrangement in the Supreme Court, citing concerns about the child’s safety and emotional stability, and alleging abusive behavior and criminal charges against the father. She argued that the expanded visitation disrupted the child’s academic and extracurricular routine.
Supreme Court’s Interim Order
The Supreme Court, recognizing the need to balance the child’s welfare with the father’s right to maintain a relationship, issued an interim order modifying the visitation arrangement:
Video Conferencing: The father and grandparents may interact with the child via video calls for one hour every Saturday and Sunday, and for 5–10 minutes on other days.
Physical Meetings: The father is allowed to spend an entire day with the child on a fortnightly basis. The mother must bring the child to the Family Court in Durg in the morning, where custody temporarily transfers to the father and returns in the evening.
Vacation Access: During long vacations (over two weeks), the child may spend a day with the father or grandparents from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM.
Safety Measures: All physical meetings and vacation visits must occur in public places and in the presence of a court-appointed female commissioner, addressing the mother’s concerns about safety and emotional comfort.
Court’s Reasoning and Observations
The Court reaffirmed that the child’s best interests are paramount in custody and visitation disputes. While the mother’s role as primary caregiver justified sole custody, the father’s right to meaningful involvement was protected through supervised visitation. The Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the mother’s allegations, as related proceedings were pending, and focused on ensuring the child’s welfare and stability.
The Court also emphasized the need for mutual respect and cooperation between parents, urging them to prioritize the child’s well-being over personal disputes. The presence of a commissioner was deemed a necessary safeguard, not a punitive measure.
Future Directions
The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing after two months, with the interim arrangement to remain in effect. The Family Court in Durg was directed to appoint the commissioner within four weeks.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that child welfare is paramount, and that both parents’ rights must be balanced through creative, supervised arrangements when allegations of harm exist. The decision is a significant precedent for custody and visitation disputes, particularly where safety concerns are raised.
RELATED Blog
0 comments