Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has upheld a family court’s refusal to execute a compromise decree granting visitation rights to a child’s father, as the arrangement appeared unworkable and the child too was against it.While refusing to interfere in the family court’s order, Justice J C Doshi said, “The child welfare since remains very sensitive, cognitive and always at the paramount, can be a sufficient principle to negative a compromise arrived between the mother and the father, which is inherently of temporary nature. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.” The couple fighting the legal battle got married in 2011. The wife left for her paternal home for the child’s delivery in 2012 and never returned to the matrimonial home. In 2016, the father approached the family court for the child’s custody under Section 26 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In 2017, the couple reached a compromise regarding visitation hours for the father. Under that arrangement, the father was to pick up the child from school once or twice a week and spend specified hours with her, including during vacations and school holidays. The family court passed a decree regarding visitation rights on the settlement agreement. Later, the couple fought many other litigations against each other and their divorce also took place. The father lost a litigation regarding the child’s custody as well. In 2022, he approached the family court again seeking enforcement of the compromise decree. The family court rejected his plea, saying that the 2017 compromise would not be workable. The father challenged the family court’s decision in the high court, where his counsel submitted that even if he failed in separate proceedings seeking custody, his visitation rights under the compromise decree remained enforceable and could not be nullified unless set aside by a superior court. During the proceedings, the HC sought to know the child’s wish, and she strongly resisted her father’s request to meet during Diwali vacation. The court said a compromise between parents cannot bind a child against her wishes, particularly in custody and visitation matters. It said, “According to this court, visitation rights are also not absolute or permanent; they are inherently temporary and flexible, designed to adopt to the evolving needs of the child. The guiding principle is always the child’s welfare. If visitation rights no longer serve purpose, forceful execution of it can be refused.”
