Orissa High Court
Saurav Raiguru vs Ananya Mishra ....... Opposite Party on 28 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12857 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Saurav Raiguru ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Ananya Mishra ....... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. G.K. Acharya, Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. A. Mohapatra,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. Impugned is the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P No.299 of
2024, vide which the following prayers of the Petitioner under
Section 151 of CPC for visitation rights to meet with his infant
son, namely, "Shlok Raiguru", stood rejected:
"a. The Petitioner/husband and his parents may be
allowed visitation rights to see his son, Baby Shlok
Raiguru, on each Sundays of the month at Cuttack
preferably at Hotel Promod Convention between 03-05
P.M. and he may be permitted to give gifts for his son.
b. Once in a weekday (Wednesday 3PM) whatsapp
video call for 15 mons with Shlok.
c. Shlok will spend a few hours on his birthday with his
father & his family.
d. Shlok will also attend his father-side ceremonies,
functions, events of friends & families as needed for the
duration as required including travel.
e. Shlok will spend 4 hours 3 PM to 7 PM with Saurav
and his family on Saurav and his parents' birthdays,
Odia and Hindu festivals."
2. Though, vide order dated 07.08.2025, on being
suggested by learned Counsel for the parties, both the parties
were directed to appear before the Mediator, High Court
Mediation Centre, but, as per the mediation report dated
18.08.2025 on record, the mediation failed. Thereafter, vide
order dated 26.08.2025, though this Court granted time to
the Opposite Party-wife to file Counter, if any, unfailingly
before the next date of listing, no Counter was filed by the
Opposite Party opposing to the prayer made in the writ
petition. However, on consent of learned Counsel for the
parties, the writ petition was taken up for hearing and
disposal at the stage of admission permitting the learned
Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife to have his say/oral
objection, if any, in response to the prayer made in the writ
petition.
3. The brief background of the present lis, as detailed
in the writ petition, is that on 02.04.2021 the Petitioner and
the Opposite Party got married in Cuttack. Thereafter, they
moved to Bangalore, where both were employed. A male child
namely, Shlok Raiguru was born to them on 29.12.2023 in
Bangalore.
3.1 It is the case of the Petitioner that, on 18.01.2024,
the Opposite Party, without his consent, left the matrimonial
home along with the minor son. On the very same day, she
lodged an F.I.R in Mahila P.S. Case, Cuttack alleging offences
under Section 498A, 307, 354 of IPC along with other
provisions, including Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, shortly, 'D.P. Act'. Pursuant to the same, notices were
issued under Section 41A to the Petitioner and his Parents
and they were released on personal bond. Meanwhile, a
charge-sheet has been submitted before the learned SDJM,
Cuttack, wherein alleged offences under Sections 307 & 354
of I.P.C. have been dropped.
3.2. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a divorce petition
before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on the
ground of cruelty citing mistreatment and torture by the
Opposite Party. In parallel, the Opposite Party also filed a
petition under Sections 12 and 23 of the Prevention of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, shortly, 'D.V. Act', before the
learned JMFC (City), Cuttack claiming interim maintenance
along with house rent. On contest, the learned Court below
allowed Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance and
Rs.10,000/- per month towards house rent. Both the parties
have challenged the said order before the learned District
Judge, Cuttack, which is now pending adjudication.
3.3. The Petitioner also lodged an F.I.R against the
Opposite Party alleging offences under Sections
307,323,326,294 and 506 of IPC at Bangalore, which was
registered pursuant to an order passed by the learned CJM,
Bangalore. The Opposite Party obtained anticipatory bail from
the learned Sessions Court, Bangalore with a direction to
cooperate in the investigation, appear before the Police once a
month and also to appear on each date of trial.
3.4. Further, during pendency of the divorce proceeding,
the Petitioner, despite being the natural father, was denied
access to his only new born child. Repeated requests of the
Petitioner through email to the Opposite Party were not
considered, compelling the Petitioner to file an application
seeking visitation right before the learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack. However, the said application was rejected
vide Order dated 20.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the Writ Petition,
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that,
despite reliance was placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67, pertaining to visitation
rights of either of the spouses, the learned Court below
rejected the Petitioner's application for visitation without
considering and addressing the same while passing the
impugned order. Hence, the impugned order, being contrary
to the settled position of law, deserves interference.
4.1. Emphasizing the well-settled legal position, the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
that, irrespective of the pendency of matrimonial disputes or
nature of offences alleged against the Petitioner, he being the
non-custodial spouse, has a legal right to visit his child. It
was also submitted that, the Petitioner was deprived of seeing
his child since the child was only 2 weeks old and at present
he is around 21 months old, having had no interaction with
his father and grandparents.
4.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that, though Supreme Court in appropriate cases
recognized the mode of contacts through WhatsApp, video
calls, Zoom meetings etc. and even suggested a daily
interaction of 15 to 20 minutes by the non-custodial parent
with the child, the said aspect was completely overlooked by
the learned Court below while passing the impugned order.
4.3. Relying on the said Judgment in Yashita Sahu
(supra), learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that, a child should not be deprived of the love and affection
of the natural parents. However, in the present case, the
learned trial Court whimsically refused to grant the visitation
right to the Petitioner merely observing that, there exists
possibility of harm to the Opposite Party and her child, if the
Petitioner is permitted frequent visitation.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party,
also relying on the judgment in Yashita Sahu (supra),
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order
passed by the learned Court below. Such an application for
visitation and interaction with the infant son filed by the
Petitioner, being premature, was rightly rejected by the
learned Court below. That apart the learned Court below has
passed a reasoned order while rejecting such prayer, which
needs no interference.
6. At this juncture, this Court deems it proper to
reproduce the operative portion of the impugned order dated
20.03.2025, vide which the Petitioner's application seeking
visitation rights stood rejected:
"I have already heard both the parties at length. Perused
the case record. The allegations made by the OP
against the petitioner are serous in nature. There
is possibility of harm to the OP and her child, if
the petitioner will be allowed to frequently visit
the child. Though the child took birth out of the relation
between the husband and wife and the child is not only
of the OP or the petitioner, but the allegations made
by the OP are serious in nature and the welfare
and development of the child at this stage is
crucial. Thus, taking into account the above facts
and circumstances of this case, the petition filed
by the petitioner at this stage is not maintainable,
as such the same stands rejected."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. So far as allegations against the Petitioner, which
are allegedly serious in nature, for which the said Petition for
visitation stood rejected by the learned Court below, it has
been stated in the impugned order that, the Opposite Party-
wife opposed to such prayer for visitation on the ground that
criminal and domestic violence cases are pending against the
Petitioner-husband and his family members for alleged
attempt to kill her.
7.1. That apart, it was also opposed on the ground that
on 03.12.2023, which was around 2 years before, the
Petitioner-husband and his parents allegedly physically
assaulted the Opposite Party-wife and dragged her on the
floor, for which she felt pain in her abdomen and went to the
nearby hospital for treatment. Such inhuman activity was
also informed to the local Police. Immediately thereafter, she
gave birth to a male child in the hospital and the entire
expenses were borne by the mother of the Opposite Party-
wife.
7.2. On 15.01.2024, when the Opposite Party was
holding the baby in her lap, the father of the Petitioner-
husband came from outside and asked her to handover the
baby to him. At that time, the father of the Petitioner had
allegedly consumed alcohol. Hence, the Opposite Party-wife
politely requested him to wash his face and hand for hygienic
purpose. But he became furious and started abusing her in
loud voice. In order to save the life of the baby, the Opposite
Party-wife tried to take the baby from the father of the
Petitioner-husband, who gave a push to the Opposite Party-
wife and ordered her to leave the house immediately. The
father of the Petitioner then handed over the baby to his wife
and thereafter, he allegedly pressed the Opposite Party on the
wall and twisted her right hand and threw her on the floor. He
also twisted her left leg and throttled her neck to kill her.
7.3. The Opposite Party-wife immediately informed the
Police of Bangalore over her mobile phone regarding the said
incident. The Police came to the house of the Petitioner and
advised the Opposite Party-wife to lodge a complaint against
the Petitioner and his parents before the concerned Police
Station.
7.4. Thereafter, on 18.01.2024, the father of the
Opposite Party-wife along with her uncle came to Bangalore
and rescued her and her baby from the clutches of the
Petitioner-husband and his parents with the help of the
Police.
7.5. The Police advised the Opposite Party-wife to return
Odisha. Accordingly, the Opposite Party-wife returned back to
Odisha on 19.01.2024. Since then the Opposite Party-wife
has been staying separately from the Petitioner-husband at
Cuttack along with her son.
7.6. Thereafter, the Petitioner-husband and his father
gave threatening to the Opposite Party-wife, her parents and
relatives by sending messages causing panic in her mind that
they will kidnap her baby and kill her. Therefore, the Opposite
Party-wife lodged an FIR before the Mahila PS, Buxibazar,
Cuttack on 28.02.2024, which has been registered as PS Case
No.31 of 2024 under Sections 498(A)/354/307/34 IPC, r/w
Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the Petitioner and his
parents.
8. Per contra, in the application filed under Section
151 of C.P.C for visitation rights in C.P. No.299 of 2024, it has
been stated that the Petitioner and the Opposite Party got
married at Cuttack on 02.04.2021. Out of their wedlock, a
male child was born on 29.12.2023 at Bangalore. The entire
delivery expenses were borne by the Petitioner-husband. The
Opposite Party's parents did not contribute any amount
towards the delivery expenses.
8.1. After solemnisation of marriage both the parties
started their conjugal life at Bangalore till 18.01.2024, on
which date the Opposite Party-wife unilaterally left the
matrimonial home with the new-born baby without the
consent/approval of the Petitioner-Husband.
8.2. After leaving the matrimonial home on 18.01.2024,
the Opposite Party-wife blocked the Petitioner from all
communication channels such as mobile phone, WhatsApp,
Facebook etc. Though the Petitioner-husband wanted to have
communication with the Opposite Party-wife, but could not do
so due to the acts of the Opposite Party-wife. Thereafter, the
Petitioner was made inaccessible to his minor son, who was
then only 7 months old.
8.3. He being desperate in seeing his son, besides being
emotional and heartbroken, tried to reach out the Opposite
Party-wife through numerous e-mails, sent to her official as
well as personal e-mail IDs. Surprisingly, even though the e-
mails were delivered, neither the Opposite Party-wife chose to
reply to any of the said e-mails nor allowed the Petitioner-
husband to have access to his son. The Petitioner-husband,
being the natural father of his only son, has a legal right to
see him and the law also stands in his favour. The Petitioner
is also ready and willing to take care of the welfare of his son
as may be required in a realistic term.
8.4. It has also been stated in the said petition that
though the Petitioner-husband has filed an application for
divorce on the ground of cruelty against the Opposite Party-
wife, he being a sensible and caring father, has not yet filed
any petition for custody of his son, though he is fully aware of
his son being allegedly neglected by the Opposite Party-wife.
8.5. It is also the case of the Petitioner-husband that he
learnt from different sources that the Opposite Party-wife is
travelling regularly to different places within and outside the
State by leaving behind their son with her relatives, mainly
her younger sister, who also stays at Cuttack, though married
in a different religion.
8.6. It has also been stated in the petition that the
Opposite Party-wife, before the marriage and post marriage
has been visiting a psychiatrist namely, Ms. Pallavi Sahu on a
regular basis, which by itself goes to indicate that the
Opposite Party-wife is not in a normal state of mind. Though,
being highly qualified, she was working with Union Asset
Management Company Ltd. and getting a very lucrative
salary, has also resigned from her job, which normally a
highly qualified working wife would not have done.
8.7. That apart, it has also been alleged in the petition
that the Petitioner-husband having lost all communication
links with the Opposite Party-wife, had approached the CWC,
Cuttack to know the whereabouts of his son. With the
intervention of the CWC, Cuttack, he learnt that the Opposite
Party-wife is staying in Cuttack with their baby namely,
"Shlok".
8.8. Though the Petitioner is based in Bangalore for his
professional gain, but he is always ready and willing to come
to Cuttack and see his son as per the frequencies and time
slots that may be provided by the concerned Court.
8.9. That apart, it has also been stated in the said
petition that when the Petitioner-husband visits
Bhubaneswar and stays with his parents, they are also very
keen to see their only grandson. Hence, while allowing the
said application, the visitation rights may also be given to the
Petitioner as well as his parents on such terms and conditions
suiting both the parties.
9. To demonstrate his eagerness to see and meet his
minor son, who would be around 1 year 10 months old now,
the Petitioner has annexed series of e-mails sent to the
Opposite Party-wife as at Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
10. As has been detailed in the impugned order dated
20.03.2025, regarding the allegations made by the Opposite
Party-wife against the Petitioner to be serious so also
possibility of causing harm to the Opposite Party-wife and her
child, if the Petitioner would be allowed to frequently visit the
child, seems to be based on the surmises and conjunctures so
also without any materials on record to apprehend so.
10.1. Admittedly, all the alleged incidents between the
Petitioner-husband and Opposite Party-wife were prior to
18.01.2024, i.e., almost around 21 months back. That apart,
the FIR was lodged before the Mahila PS, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack
is dated 28.02.2024 for the alleged offences under Sections
498(A)/354/307/34 IPC, read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act
against the Petitioner and his parents. Thereafter, nothing
was placed before the learned Court below so also before this
Court to demonstrate that there is a consistent life threat to
the Opposite Party-wife so also her small kid after lodging the
FIR on 28.02.2024 before the Mahila PS, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack.
10.2. Further, a natural father of a child, who is
desperate to see and meet his son and is fighting out a legal
battle to ensure his visitation rights by knocking the door of
the appropriate Court, instead of taking recourse to any illegal
and improper means, can not cause any harm to his own son
so also wife, as has been incorrectly apprehended by the
learned Court below.
10.3. Hence, this Court is of the view that such
apprehension of possibility of harm to the Opposite Party-wife
and her child, if the Petitioner will be allowed to frequently
visit the child, being contrary to the settled position of law, is
perverse and deserves interference.
11. As both the learned Counsel for the parties, to
substantiate their submission, relied on the judgment of
Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu (supra), it would be
appropriate to reproduce below the paragraph Nos.21 to 25 of
the said judgment, the same being relevant for adjudication of
the present lis regarding visitation rights as well as contact
rights of parents.
"21. The child is the victim in custody battles. In this
fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and
litigations between two spouses, our experience shows that
more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their
child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain
and he or she alone is entitled to the custody of the child.
The court must therefore be very wary of what is said by
each of the spouses.
22. A child, especially a child of tender years
requires the love, affection, company, protection of
both parents. This is not only the requirement of the
child but is his/her basic human right. Just because
the parents are at war with each other, does not
mean that the child should be denied the care,
affection, love or protection of any one of the two
parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be
tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation,
every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic
impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the
court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully
before deciding how and in what manner the custody of
the child should be shared between both the parents. Even
if the custody is given to one parent, the other parent
must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that
the child keeps in touch with the other parent and
does not lose social, physical and psychological
contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in
extreme circumstances that one parent should be
denied contact with the child. Reasons must be
assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation
rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with
the custody matters must while deciding issues of
custody clearly define the nature, manner and
specifics of the visitation rights.
23. The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed
in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse
do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the
other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human
right to have the love and affection of both the
parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that
the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection
and company of one of her/his parents.
24. Normally, if the parents are living in the same town
or area, the spouse who has not been granted custody is
given visitation rights over weekends only. In case the
spouses are living at a distance from each other, it may not
be feasible or in the interest of the child to create
impediments in the education of the child by frequent
breaks and, in such cases the visitation rights must be
given over long weekends, breaks and holidays. In cases
like the present one, where the parents are in two different
continents, effort should be made to give maximum
visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody."
25. In addition to "visitation rights", "contact rights"
are also important for development of the child,
specially in cases where both parents live in
different States or countries. The concept of contact
rights in the modern age would be contact by
telephone, e-mail or in fact, we feel the best system
of contact, if available between the parties should be
video calling. With the increasing availability of
internet, video calling is now very common and
courts dealing with the issue of custody of children
must ensure that the parent who is denied custody of
the child should be able to talk to her/his child as
often as possible. Unless there are special
circumstances to take a different view, the parent
who is denied custody of the child should have the
right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes every
day. This will help in maintaining and improving the
bond between the child and the parent who is denied
custody. If that bond is maintained, the child will
have no difficulty in moving from one home to
another during vacations or holidays. The purpose of
this is, if we cannot provide one happy home with
two parents to the child then let the child have the
benefit of two happy homes with one parent each."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Recently, relying on the judgment in Yashita
Sahu(Supra), this Court in Sanjay Sharma Vs. Dolly @
Sakhi Sharma & another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
Ori 3736, while emphasizing the significance of visitation
rights in the light of paramount consideration of welfare of the
child, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned
court below, vide which the Petitioner-husband's application
seeking visitation rights to meet his minor son was rejected.
Paragraph 18 & 19 of the said judgment, being relevant, are
extracted below:
"18. Since visitation right is an important right of
either of the parents to see the children born out of
their wedlock and while deciding the welfare of the
child, it is not the view of one spouse alone, which
has to be taken into consideration, this Court is of
the view that the Court is required to decide the
issue of visitation on the basis of what is in the best
interest of the child. This Court is of the further view
that the impugned order passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Cuttack deserves interference.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.03.2025
passed in I.A. No.117 of 2024, arising out of C.P. No.543 of
2024, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to pass
appropriate order afresh in consultation with the
parties so also their respective Counsels, who
represent them in the proceeding in C.P. No.543 of
2024, to decide the place, frequency and time of visit
so also the manner the Petitioner should meet with
his son till disposal of C.P. No.543 of 2024 and other
terms and conditions, as would be deem just and
proper, to maintain decorum and to avoid untoward
incident during such meeting of the Petitioner with
his son. Learned Court below shall also put appropriate
condition enabling the Petitioner to be in touch with
Opposite Party No.2 telephonically or through WhatsApp
communication during pendency of the C.P. No.543 of
2024. Appropriate order, in terms of the observation made
above, shall be passed within three weeks hence. Till then
the interim arrangement made by this Court regarding
telephonic/WhatsApp Call shall continue as before."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Law is well settled that, in matters involving
custody or visitation of a child, the welfare of the child is of
the paramount consideration. A child of tender age is
entitled to the love, care and companionship of both the
parents. While custody may rest with one parent, the other
parent must ordinarily be given sufficient access, unless
exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.
14. So far as visitation right of grandparents, as the
term 'Visitation' is not defined under the Guardian and
Wards Act, 1890 or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956, a reference to the dictionary meaning of the said
term would be useful. The Black's Law Dictionary provides
different concepts to the term "Visitation" and has
recognized various kinds of visitation rights such as (i)
visitation; (ii) grandparent visitation; (iii) restricted
visitation; (iv) stepped-up visitation; and (v) supervised
visitation.
15. The word 'Visitation' is defined there with
specific reference to Family Law, to a non-custodial parent's
period of access to child and also termed as 'parental
access' and further defined as 'parenting time', residential
time. A 'grandparent's visitation' is defined as a
grandparent's Court approved access to a grandchild.
Similarly, 'restricted' and 'supervised visitation' are
defined as visitation under the orders of Court in which a
parent may visit the child or children only in the presence
of some other individual and that a Court may order
supervised visitation when the visiting parent is known or
believed to be prone to physical abuse, sexual abuse or
violence. 'Stepped-up visitation' means a visitation under
the orders of a Court for a parent who has been absent from
child's life, that begins on a very limited basis and increases
as the child comes to know the parent. Therefore, in legal
parlance the grandparents' visitation of the child is well-
recognized, as prayed in the present case.
16. In custody/guardianship matters, the Courts
have to consider the welfare of the minor child, which is the
paramount consideration and to ensure and safeguard
family system in the country, which is fast eroding and to
ensure that there is overall development of the minor child
and there is proper environment and upbringing of the child
and therefore, the best interests of the child are taken care.
17. In a custody battle, there can't be a straightjacket
formula to be followed. In the Indian society, the
grandparents form an integral part for upbringing of
children and that part of affection and contribution cannot
be ignored or shelved and it is the welfare of the children
which this Court is concerned. The grandparents, being
ancillary part and parcel of the family, would hold the way
for welfare of the child. Therefore, meeting of the
grandparents with the children would also be a necessary
part for upbringing, before their mind is polluted by
unilateral act of any of the single parents.
18. In the present case, admittedly, the minor child
as on date is at the tender age of 1 year and 10 months old
(born on 29.12.2023) and therefore, the opposite
party/mother can claim custody over the minor child. At
the same time, apart from the natural father, the
grandparents cannot be denied reasonable access/visitation
rights, which will also help the child's normal development.
An affectionate relationship with grandparents is recognized
as beneficial for the child. It is to be pointed out at this
juncture that the Petitioner-father and his parents had last
seen the child "Shlok" on 18.01.2024, when he was only
about three weeks old, when the opposite Party left
Bangalore without the consent of the Petitioner-Husband
due to the strained relationship between them.
19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, in
addition to the visitation right of the petitioner-father as
held in Yashita Sahu (supra), the grandparents cannot be
denied reasonable access/visitation rights, which will also
help the child's normal development, as an affectionate
relationship with grandparents is well recognised as
beneficial for the child. That apart, this Court is also of the
view that the grandparents, who have hopes on the grand
son to come and inherit them one day, are also required to
be given visitation rights to the child.
20. In view of the materials on record, detailed
discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs, the settled
position of law, so also in the absence of any such
exceptional circumstances warranting denial of visitation
right, this Court is of the considered view that, the learned
Court below was not justified in rejecting the application of
the Petitioner-husband seeking visitation right on the plea
of alleged apprehension of harm to the Opposite Party-wife
and the infant son without any material on record to
substantiate such finding. Thus, the impugned order dated
20.03.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Cuttack deserves interference.
21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
20.03.2025 passed in C.P No. 299 of 2024 is set aside.
22. The prayer for visitation and interaction with the
minor child namely, "Shlok", is allowed with the following
terms.
I. Since there is an allegation and counter
allegation of cruelty, it would be advisable to have a
supervised visitation at High Court Mediation Centre,
Aain Seva Bhawan, Cuttack, which will be nearer to
the house of the Opposite Party-wife, who is at
present residing at Sector-10, CDA, Cuttack.
II. Such visitation/interaction shall be twice in
every calendar month.
III. The date of visitation would be normally on the
1st and 3rd Saturday of every month at 11 A.M.
IV. The 1st date of visitation is fixed to 15.11.2025 at
11 A.M. before the High Court Mediation Centre,
Cuttack. The subsequent date and time of visitation
shall be fixed by the Mediator in consultation with the
parties so also in terms of the observations made in
Clause III above.
V. The Petitioner's parents will have the visitation
right, who can meet and interact with their only
grandson namely, "Shlok" at the High Court
Mediation Centre, Cuttack along with the Petitioner
on the dates fixed for visitation.
VI. Duration of such visitation/interaction shall be
for about two hours i.e., from 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.
VII. On the dates of visitation, the Petitioner-father so
also his parents are permitted to give gifts to the
minor child, "Shlok".
VIII. Apart from visitation, the Petitioner and his
parents are permitted to meet the child namely,
"Shlok" on his birthday, i.e., 29th December each
year, at High Court Mediation Centre, Cuttack, until
the Child namely, "Shlok" attains the age of 5 years.
IX. If the Birthday of the child namely, "Shlok" or the
date fixed for visitation falls on a weekly off day or
public holiday, on prior intimation to the Coordinator,
High Court Mediation Centre, Cuttack, whose phone
number is 9439048489 and e-mail address is cac.od-
[email protected], the date of visitation on the occasion of
birthday of "Shlok" shall be preponed or postponed to
the preceding or succeeding date, as per the
convenience of the parties.
X. The Coordinator, High Court Mediation Centre,
Cuttack shall make necessary arrangements for
visitation/ interaction with "Shlok" in the creche, if
any, available in the Mediation Centre or will provide
a separate room for such visitation/interaction of the
Petitioner and his parents with the child "Shlok".
XI. The Coordinator, High Court Mediation Centre,
Cuttack shall also appoint a trained female Mediator,
who shall remain present throughout along with a
lady Peon, during such visitation of the Petitioner so
also his parents.
XII. It is made clear that the Petitioner-husband shall
pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) in cash to the
Opposite Party-wife on each date of visitation
enabling her to meet the conveyance and other
expenses to bring the child "Shlok" to High Court
Mediation Centre, Cuttack. The Mediator, present
during such visitation, shall ensure such payment,
failing which the Petitioner so also his parents shall
loose the rights of visitation, as ordered by this Court.
XIII. Apart from visitation rights, as detailed above,
the Petitioner-husband so also his parents are
permitted to interact with "Shlok" through WhatsApp
video calling or any other suitable mode of Video
Conferencing platform on every 2nd and 4th Saturday
and Sundays, so also other holidays for about one
hour, i.e., from 6.00 P.M. to 7.00 P.M.
XIV. The Petitioner shall provide a new android
mobile phone with a valid SIM, which will be
exclusively used for the purpose of facilitating
WhatsApp video calling/interacting with the minor
child namely, "Shlok".
XV. The said mobile phone shall be handed over to
the Opposite Party-wife before the learned Mediator
on 15th November, 2025, i.e., the first date fixed for
visitation.
XVI. Further, it is made clear that, the grandparents
of "Shlok" shall also be permitted to participate
during such interaction of the Petitioner with "Shlok"
through WhatsApp group video calling.
XVII. The Petitioner and his parents shall not create
any unpleasant situation at the time of exercising
their visitation right so also during their interaction
with "Shlok", which are not at all conducive to the
interest of the child, failing which they shall be
debarred from spending time so also interacting with
the child namely, "Shlok" through Video
Conferencing.
XVIII. Similarly, the Opposite Party-wife shall also
cooperate with the Petitioner and his parents with
regard to their visitation and interaction right
accorded by this Court, as detailed above, and not to
create any unpleasant situation at the time of
exercising such rights at High Court Mediation
Centre, Cuttack, so also during their interaction with
the child "Shlok" through WhatsApp Video Call.
XIX. Both the parties shall remain in touch with the
Coordinator, High Court Mediation Centre and
apprise him in advance regarding their difficulty, if
any, regarding visitation so also interaction with the
child namely, "Shlok", as observed above, who shall
in turn apprise the said fact to this Court for variance
of the aforesaid observations/terms fixed by this
Court, in case so necessitated in future.
XX. In view of the provisions enshrined under Section
6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956, such arrangement, as detailed above, shall
remain in force until the minor child namely, "Shlok"
completes the age of five years.
XXI. After completion of five years of the child
"Shlok", the Petitioner shall be at liberty to move
appropriate application(s) before the competent Court
seeking stepped-up visitation or any other relief, in
accordance with law, if so advised.
23. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and
disposed of. No order as to costs.
24. Office is directed to communicate operative
portions of this judgment to the Coordinator, High Court
Mediation Centre, Cuttack for doing the needful, as
observed above.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 28th October, 2025/Kanhu
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 29-Oct-2025 19:29:33
