SUGIRTHA versus GOWTHAM

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2089 · Decided: 19-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2089 : 2024 INSC 1036
Sugirtha 
v. 
Gowtham
(Civil Appeal No. 14833 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a child can be made to travel 300 kms to enable the 
father to exercise visitation rights to the child.
Headnotes†
Matrimonial disputes between parents should not be an 
impediment to a child’s right to have company of both parents – 
Interest of the minor child is paramount:
Held: The 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 the parents – Though the child was 
in the care of the father for only 2 months after his birth, it would not 
compromise the right of the father to visit and enjoy the company 
of the child – The interest of the minor child is paramount – While 
the father has the right to visit the child, it cannot be at the cost 
of the child’s health and well-being. [Paras 14, 15]
Directions issued by High Court modified to the extent of 
place of visitation:
Held: In this case, the High Court had directed the mother to travel 
with the child from Madurai to Karur, which was about 150 kms 
away on every Sunday – Considering the interest of the child as 
the paramount consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed 
the father to travel to Madurai on every Sunday, and visit the child. 
[Paras 16, 17]
List of Keywords
Interest of child is paramount consideration.
*Author
2090
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14833 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CMAMD No. 118 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Aadarsh Kotihari, Akhil Ranganathan, Dhilipan Pandian R.C., 
Rishabh Dahiya, Utpal Sharma, M/s. Vimalpani & Co., Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The present appeal arising from the Special Leave Petition No. 18240 
of 2024 challenges the validity of the judgment dated 21.03.2024 
passed by the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench in C.M.A. (MD) 
No. 118 of 2024. The High Court, through the impugned order, has 
dismissed the appellant–mother’s miscellaneous appeal and upheld 
the interim visitation rights granted to the respondent–father and 
modified the directions passed by the Family Court.
3.	
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the parties herein 
got married on 09.09.2021 and a daughter was born to them on 
06.06.2022. Shortly after birth of the child, in June 2023, the appellant 
filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of 
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,1 on the ground of cruelty. Appellant 
in her petition contended that the respondent had continuously 
been committing domestic violence on her as well as the child. He 
had deserted them on 01.07.2022, and when he returned later, 
he attempted to kill them on 16.08.2022. She has also asserted 
that he would also beat up the child for absolutely no reason. She 
further submitted that the parties have been living separately since 
18.08.2022.
1	
In short, the “HMA”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
2091
Sugirtha v. Gowtham
4.	
Respondent in October 2023, had preferred an application under 
Section 26 of the HMA in the divorce proceedings, seeking visitation 
rights during the pendency of the proceedings. The Family Court 
allowed the respondent’s application and in its order dated 10.11.2023 
directed that the appellant should take the child to Karur, Tamil Nadu, 
every Sunday in the morning from 10:00 hours to 12:00 hours, and 
hand over the child to the respondent in the campus of the Kalyana 
Pasupatheswarar Temple, Karur.
5.	
Appellant approached the High Court against the above judgment of 
the Family Court on the ground that she is now residing in Madurai 
and the distance between Madurai and Karur is 150 kilometers, 
and thus the long travel of 300 kilometers every Sunday would be 
adversarial to the health of the child. Further, she has also contended 
that there is continuous death threat to the life of the appellant and 
the child; the respondent has never taken care of the child, the child 
has never been in his company, and thus, respondent is effectively a 
stranger for the child. Therefore, such visits would only be a source 
of mental agony to her.
6.	
The High Court, while dismissing the miscellaneous appeal file
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.