Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Serious disputes / differences between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, cannot lead to deprivation of the love and affection of both the parents to the children," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that matrimonial discord between spouses should not result in the deprivation of parental love and affection for their children.

A bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya observed that while the welfare and opinion of the child are paramount, the courts must carefully ensure that such opinions are not formed under the influence or "tutoring" of one parent against the other.

The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner-husband filed an application under Section 26 of the Act seeking visitation rights to meet his three minor children. The trial court had dismissed his plea for visitation based on an interaction with the eldest child, leading to the present revision petition.

The primary question before the court was whether the refusal of visitation rights based solely on the child’s preference was legally sustainable. The court was also called upon to determine whether interim telephonic and video access should be maintained even if physical visitation is temporarily deferred.

The Court noted that the trial court had rejected the visitation rights primarily based on its interaction with the eldest daughter. However, the High Court emphasized that the emotional well-being of the children depends on the warmth and affection of both parents. The bench noted that any denial of such access could have a lasting adverse impact on the overall development and psyche of the minor children.

Welfare of Child as Paramount Consideration

The bench observed that in custody and visitation battles, the welfare of the child remains the "paramount consideration." It reiterated that children should not be made victims of the battles fought between their parents. The court emphasized that while the child’s opinion is a vital factor, it is the duty of the judiciary to look beyond the surface of such statements.

Court Must Guard Against Parental Tutoring

The court highlighted the risk of children being influenced by the parent with whom they reside. It noted that the court has to ensure that the child is not under the influence of one parent before passing an order based on their stated preference. Justice Jayasurya remarked that judicial intervention must aim for the "best interest of the child," which usually involves maintaining a bond with both parents.

"The Court has to ensure that the child is not under the influence of the parents and then pass an order, which is in the best interest of the child."

Telephonic and Video Access Must Be Preserved

The petitioner argued that even a prior direction for telephonic and video calls was being flouted by the respondent. The High Court found no justification for the suspension of these virtual visitation rights. It noted that even if physical visitation was deferred by the trial court, the communication channels between the father and the children through technology must remain open to ensure the relationship is not erased.

Liberty to Re-apply for Visitation Rights

The court noted that the trial court had already granted the husband liberty to file a fresh petition for visitation after six months upon showing changed circumstances. Given this window, the High Court did not set aside the entire order but modified it to provide immediate relief regarding communication. It directed that the earlier interim order allowing telephonic and video calls once a week must remain in force.

"Serious disputes / differences between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, cannot lead to deprivation of the love and affection of both the parents to the children."

Final Directions and Conclusion

The High Court disposed of the revision petition by modifying the trial court’s order. While the husband retains the liberty to seek a renewal of visitation rights after six months, the court directed the Senior Civil Judge to decide any such future application on its own merits without being influenced by previous observations. The lower court was further directed to resolve such applications within two months of filing.

The ruling reinforces the principle that "parental alienation" is a significant concern in matrimonial litigation. By restoring telephonic access, the court balanced the current preference of the child with the long-term necessity of maintaining a paternal bond.

Date of Decision: 06 May 2026