1 2026:CGHC:23070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 487 of 2026 1 - Sunil Kotadiya S/o Shri Jee-Vanchandra Kotadiya Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Anup Jewelers (Kotadiya Jewelers) Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Priya Kankariya D/o Prakash Kankariya Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Advocate, R/o Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Veer Kotadiya S/o Sunil Kotadiya Aged About 11 Years Through Mother Priya Kankariya, R/o Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. Present is a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in MJC No. Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.23 16:07:45 +0530 2 12/2024, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the petitioner filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and granted visitation right to the petitioner with his minor son, and directed the respondent to remain present before the court in each date of hearing along with the minor child after his school hours. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, the respondent No. 2 was born. On account of matrimonial discord, both parties separated, and ultimately they filed an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent, before the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 134-A/2023. The said application is allowed on 13.06.2023, and their marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has also been quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 14.10.2025, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1125/2025. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 1 is not allowing the petitioner to meet his son, i.e. the respondent No. 2, he filed an application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, for declaring him the guardian of the minor child/respondent No. 2, before the learned 3 Family Court, Rajnandgaon. In the proceeding, an application under Section 151of CPC has also been filed for visitation rights to meet his son during the pendency of the proceeding. The said application is partly allowed by the learned family Court on 27.02.2026 and directed the respondent No. 1 to remain present on each date of hearing along with the respondent No. 2 child after his school hours. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the father of the respondent No. 2. He has a natural affection with his son. Directing the respondent No. 1 to keep the minor son present before the Court on each date of hearing would adversely affect the welfare of the child, and he would be placed in mental trauma due to the court proceedings. During the proceedings of divorce and quashing of proceedings of the Domestic Violence Act, there was a clear understanding between the parties that the petitioner would be allowed to take the child with him on the festivals and other occasions. She would further submit that under the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, it would not be proper to produce the child before the court on every date of hearing, and instead thereof, the petitioner may be permitted to take the child with him every week and on the festival or certain specific occasion. The environment of the Court premises is not conducive to maintaining a familiar bond with the child and maintaining a relationship. She would also submit that the 4 petitioner may be permitted to take the child with him on every weekday to spend some time with him. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions from the respondents, submitted that they have no objection to granting visitation rights to the petitioner by permitting him to take the child every weekend for some specific time so that the child should also be familiar with him and to throw love and affection upon him, which would be in the interest of his welfare. 6. Without any controversy, the respondent No. 1 is ready to send the child/respondent No. 2 with the petitioner on every Sunday from 11.00 AM to 05.00 PM of the same day, and thereafter he will drop him back to her house without any objection. The petitioner is also ready to take the child/respondent No. 2 with him on every Sunday on the fixed time of 11.00 AM and will drop him to the house of the respondent No. 1 without any delay. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition and considered their submissions. 8. Considering the paramount welfare of the minor child, which is the prime consideration in matters relating to the custody and visitation, this court thinks that the Court premises should ordinarily be treated as a last resort for arranging interaction between a parent and a child. Courts are generally perceived by children as formal, intimidating and emotionally stressful places, and repeated exposure to such an atmosphere may create fear, 5 anxiety and emotional discomfort in the mind of the child. A child involved in matrimonial discord between parents should not be subjected to an environment that may psychologically burden or emotionally scar him. Rather, efforts must be made to ensure that the child experiences affection, security and emotional stability while interacting with both parents. Therefore, visitation in neutral and child-friendly surroundings such as parks, malls, recreational centres or other public places would better serve the emotional and psychological interests of the child and would enable the child to interact freely and neutrally with the non-custodial parent. 9. In this context, reference may profitably be made to the case of "Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and another v. State of U.P." 2025 (4) SCC 342, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that, particularly in the case of children of a reasonably mature age, the Court must endeavour to ascertain the wishes, comfort and emotional attitude of the child in a congenial and friendly atmosphere instead of compelling the child to participate in proceedings within a hostile or formal courtroom setting. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the child's emotional well- being and mental development must receive primacy over procedural formalities. Guided by the aforesaid principle and keeping in view the emotional, educational and psychological welfare of the child, this Court finds it appropriate to permit visitation rights in a neutral, cordial and child-friendly environment so as to foster and preserve the emotional bond between the child 6 and the non-custodial parent without exposing the child to avoidable stress or conflict. 10. Having regard to the welfare, emotional development and overall best interests of the minor child, this Court is of the considered opinion that the child should not be deprived of the love, affection and company of the non-custodial parent. A child requires the care, emotional support and guidance of both parents for his/her balanced growth and personality development. At the same time, the visitation arrangement must be structured in a manner that does not disturb the child's routine, education or mental peace. Therefore, a balanced and workable visitation schedule deserves to be framed so as to preserve the emotional bond between the child and the petitioner while ensuring that the custodial rights of respondent No. 1 remain unaffected. 11. In view of the paramount interest and welfare of the minor child, and also in view of the mutual understanding of the parties as has been observed hereinabove, the petitioner/father is permitted to take the child/respondent No. 2 with him on every Sunday from 11:00 A.M. to 05:00 P.M. The petitioner shall pick up the child from the residential house of respondent No. 1 at 11:00 A.M. and shall safely drop him back at the same place by 05:00 P.M. without any overstay, except in unavoidable circumstances. During such visitation, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take the child to his residence and permit him to interact with other family members in a cordial and congenial family atmosphere so as to strengthen the 7 emotional bond between them. The petitioner shall also be free to provide the child with clothes, sweets, chocolates, toys, gifts and other articles of affection according to his wish. It is, however, made clear that the aforesaid visitation arrangement shall remain suspended during the examination period of the minor child, commencing from fifteen days prior to the scheduled examination and continuing till completion thereof, so that the child's studies and academic routine are not adversely affected. The details and schedule of such examination shall be communicated to the petitioner sufficiently in advance by respondent No. 1, either in writing or through electronic modes of communication such as WhatsApp, e-mail or any other convenient mode. 12. It is expected from both parties that they shall cooperate with each other in implementing the aforesaid arrangement in its true spirit and shall not act in any manner prejudicial to the emotional well- being of the child. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in MJC No. 12/2024 is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. The direction requiring the respondent No. 1 to produce the minor child before the Family Court on each date of hearing stands substituted by the visitation arrangement formulated by this Court in the paramount interest and welfare of the child. It is further directed that both parties shall maintain cordiality during the exchange of custody and shall ensure that the child is not exposed to any 8 matrimonial discord, emotional pressure or adverse atmosphere. Needless to observe that the learned Family Court shall remain at liberty to suitably modify the visitation arrangement, if circumstances so warrant in future, keeping in view the welfare, comfort, education and psychological well-being of the minor child. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok