Even If Parents Live in Different Countries, A Child Has the Right to the Affection of Both — Supreme Court Grants Father Video Visitation with Son Residing in Ireland

"A word of comfort, a smile, a conversation — even over video — can help a child know both parents still care." - In a sensitive and compassionate judgment, the Supreme Court of India balanced legal rights and emotional realities to uphold the best interests of a minor child amid parental estrangement and international relocation. The Court, while refusing to disturb the child's settled custody with the mother in Ireland, directed that the father shall be allowed structured video conferencing visitation.

Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that “what matters most is that the child grows up in an atmosphere where he feels secure, loved, and cared for”, and permitted video interaction every alternate Sunday from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon (Ireland time).

“The Welfare of the Child Must Override Adversarial Positions Between Parents”

The Court noted that the couple’s bitter and prolonged matrimonial and custody dispute had gone on for years, involving multiple proceedings under both the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the Bench made it clear that the focus of the Court must remain on the emotional, mental and physical well-being of the child, not on adjudicating who was the "better" parent or who had breached which interim order.

Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the Bench, emphasized: “The present matter is sensitive because it concerns the future of a young child. When such disputes arise, the central question is not who is right or wrong as between the parents, but what arrangement will best serve the child.”

“The Court cannot allow the child to become a casualty of this conflict.”

"Where the Child Is Settled Abroad, Virtual Contact Can Preserve Emotional Bonds”

Noting that the mother had taken the child to Ireland, and that the child appeared to be settled and doing well, the Supreme Court categorically held that disrupting this caregiving arrangement at this stage would not be in the child's best interest.

However, the Court also recognised that non-custodial parental relationships must be preserved meaningfully, even across borders. It therefore permitted video interaction, stating:

“Even if parents live apart or in different countries, it is important for the child to maintain a relationship with both of them.”

“Denying such contact would deprive the child of the love, guidance, and emotional support of the father.”

The Court appreciated that the father had not insisted on custody, but had merely sought regular interaction with his son through videoconferencing, and termed this a reasonable, fair, and necessary request.

"Parental Conduct May Be Flawed, But the Child's Welfare Remains Paramount”

The Court observed that both parties had exhibited less-than-ideal conduct during the protracted legal battle. However, it declined to dwell on breaches of interim custody arrangements or past grievances, noting that these should not override the present and future needs of the child.

In a humane and child-centric tone, the judgment held:

“The conduct of both parents has not been ideal… but what matters most is that the child grows up in an atmosphere where he feels secure, loved, and cared for.”

Court Orders Two-Hour Video Interaction Every Alternate Sunday

After considering all submissions, the Court issued the following structured directions:

“The appellant shall be entitled to interact with his son through video-conferencing for two hours on every alternate Sunday from 10.00 AM to 12 noon (Ireland time).”

Further, both parents were directed to cooperate in good faith to ensure this contact was implemented without obstruction, hostility or delay, and that any technical or logistical issues be resolved mutually, bearing in mind that "the interest of the child is paramount."

This calibrated relief was granted without reopening the High Court’s findings or altering the settled custody, reflecting judicial restraint and emotional sensitivity.

Virtual Contact as a Legal Right — A Growing Jurisprudence on Digital Visitation

Though there are no express statutory provisions under Indian law on virtual visitation rights, the Supreme Court in this case has further evolved jurisprudence around non-physical parental access, especially in transnational custody scenarios.

By granting video visitation as a matter of right, the Court has reaffirmed the emotional and psychological entitlement of a child to both parents, regardless of geography or litigation history.

A Judgment Rooted in Child-Centric Compassion

The Supreme Court refused to allow the bitterness of litigation to dictate the future of an innocent child. Instead, it carved out a middle path — protecting the settled custody arrangement while also ensuring emotional continuity with the non-custodial parent.

“Every child has a right to the affection of both parents.”

With this principle, the Court reminded all stakeholders — litigants, lawyers, and lower courts — that in custody battles, the only victor must be the child's well-being.

Date of Decision: 02 September 2025