Both Parents Crucial: Raj HC Orders Counselling for Sons

Both Parents Crucial in Child's Upbringing: Rajasthan High Court Orders Counselling Before Deciding Mother's Visitation Plea

Published: 14 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

Two minor sons living with their father refused to meet their estranged mother. The Rajasthan High Court held that both parents are crucial in a child's upbringing and that courts should act as facilitators to bridge the gap between children and an estranged parent (para 16). Since no implementable order could force the boys to meet her, it directed weekly counselling by a psychologist before the Family Court decides the mother's visitation plea (paras 20-23), and imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the father (para 24).

Key holdings

Courts should direct ways to build a bond between an estranged parent and the child, including effective unsupervised visitation (para 16).

A custodial parent's delaying tactics and failure to guide the children towards the other parent can feed their hostility; coaching cannot be ruled out (para 17).

Where children are adamant, a psychologist should help them before visitation is decided; a court order cannot usefully force a meeting (para 20).

The Registry and Family Courts must mask parties' names in matrimonial disputes, for example as XX v. YY (paras 25-27).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The mother left the matrimonial home in 2021 and the two sons stayed with their father (paras 2, 15). Her application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is pending before the Family Court; on her interim plea for visitation, the Family Court on 30.05.2023 summoned the children (paras 2, 14). The father challenged that order, and it was stayed (para 3). Court-annexed mediation and facilitated meetings failed (paras 4-5). A consent arrangement of one-hour home visits on alternate days followed, but the father later objected that the children did not want to meet their mother (para 6). When the judge met them in chamber, both boys answered with a firm ‘NO’ (para 19).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that the mother had to move out under compelling circumstances, though the father says she left on her own, and that repeated failed mediation showed deep-seated conflict (para 15). Both parents are crucial in a child's upbringing; courts should act as facilitators and direct ways to build a bond between the estranged parent and the child, including effective unsupervised visitation, so that a child has two happy homes if one is not possible (para 16). The chronology showed the father prolonging the litigation through successive applications and transfer petitions, seemingly to exploit the children's present hostility; coaching could not be ruled out, and the hostility seemed also to result from his neglect to guide them towards their mother (para 17). He was unduly possessive, and the conditions he set for the visits made the mother feel like a prisoner (para 18). Given the parents' hostility, the children first had to be guided about the role of both parents with a psychologist's help; neither this Court nor the Family Court could pass an implementable order forcing them to meet her (para 20).

Legal Principle

Both parents are crucial in a child's upbringing, and courts should act as facilitators to bridge the gap between children and an estranged parent. Where children firmly refuse to meet a parent amid parental hostility, professional counselling should come first, before the visitation application is decided (paras 16, 20).

Precedents Relied Upon

Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal 1973 (1) SCC 840
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on the child's opinion and the parent's fitness to be guardian; not discussed by the Court.
Mrs Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arwand M. Dinshaw and Another 1987 (1) SCC 42
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel: custody is decided on the paramount interest of the child, not the rights of the parents; not discussed by the Court.
Mausami Moitra Ganguly v. Jayant Ganguly 2008 (7) SCC 673
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on the child's stated preference and the interest of the child; not discussed by the Court.

View all precedents (14)

Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal 2009 (1) SCC 42
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on a grown-up child's preference and the child's welfare over the parents' rights; not discussed by the Court.
Tejaswini Gaud and others v. Sekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others 2019 (7) SCC 42
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on the interest of the child and the child's ethical upbringing; not discussed by the Court.
Smiriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra 2021 (12) SCC 289
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on the factors in custody decisions and the child's preference; not discussed by the Court.
Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla 2012 (12) SCC 471
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel for the proposition that visitation rights cannot be given to a mother whom the children are not willing to meet; not discussed by the Court.
Perry Kansagra v. Smiriti Madan Kansagra 2019 (20) SCC 753
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on the mediator's report and its confidentiality; not discussed by the Court.
Mr Moumitra Kumar Nahar v. Ms. Parul Nahar 2015 SCC Online Del 11799
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioner's counsel on whether a child can be forced; not discussed by the Court.
Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo AIR 2011 SC 1952
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondent-mother's counsel: a minor's antagonism towards the father should not hinder visitation rights; not discussed by the Court.
Manoj Anslem Rebeiro v. Candace Elizebath Rebeiro 2016 (2) WLN 197
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondent-mother's counsel: acrimonious circumstances should not deny the father's right to see his daughter; monthly visitation directed; not discussed by the Court.
Mrs Ritika Sharan v. Mr Sujoy Ghosh Civil Appeal Nos. 3544-45 of 2020
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondent-mother's counsel: the father is entitled to adequate access and visitation rights; not discussed by the Court.
Parvati v. State of Rajasthan & anr SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1258/2015
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondent-mother's counsel: the mother, as a biological parent, is entitled to visitation rights; not discussed by the Court.
Rajesh Kumari v. Dheeraj & ors High Court of Delhi, CM(M) 588/2023
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
Cited by the respondent-mother's counsel: even where the bond is broken, visitation should be considered and the court should act as a facilitator; not discussed by the Court.

Both Parents Crucial in Child's Upbringing: Rajasthan High Court Orders Counselling Before Deciding Mother's Visitation Plea

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court