Parental separation is often viewed through the lens of marital discord, custody battles, and legal technicalities. However, beyond these issues lies the child’s fundamental right to grow up in an environment of emotional security and parental affection. The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment in Manoj Dhankar v. Neeharika & Ors. (2025) provides an essential perspective: while parents may part ways physically or geographically, emotional separation from the child cannot be justified.
This article examines the facts, issues, and reasoning in this case, followed by an analysis of whether parental separation can ever translate into emotional separation, keeping in mind the constitutional, statutory, and psychological frameworks that protect children’s welfare.
Facts of the Case
- Marriage and Childbirth: The appellant, Manoj Dhankar, and the respondent, Neeharika, married in November 2012. Their son was born in January 2016.
- Separation: In 2017, the mother left the matrimonial home and filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Custody Proceedings: The father initiated custody proceedings. The Family Court allowed limited visitation (twice a month at the child’s school) in 2019.
- Settlement Attempts: The parties attempted a mutual consent divorce in 2019 with a custody arrangement, but it collapsed.
- Guardianship Petition: In 2022, the Family Court granted weekend custody to the father, but later dismissed the final custody petition in 2023 due to alleged violations of the interim order.
- Relocation Abroad: During the appeal process, the mother moved with the child to Ireland. The father sought video interaction rights.
- High Court’s Stand: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the father’s appeal, citing his past conduct and the child’s settled life with the mother.
- Supreme Court’s Intervention: The father approached the Supreme Court, limiting his request to a video-conferencing interaction with the child.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a parent’s past conduct can justify denying them meaningful interaction with their child.
- Whether parental separation and geographic relocation should result in emotional separation of the child from the non-custodial parent.
- How the Court should balance the child’s settled life abroad with the child’s right to maintain emotional bonds with both parents.
Observations of the Court
Justice Vikram Nath, speaking for the Bench, made critical observations:
- Custody disputes are not about parental rights but the welfare of the child.
- Both parents’ conduct had been less than ideal, but the Court cannot allow the child to become a “casualty of conflict”.
- Every child has a right to the affection of both parents, irrespective of whether they live together or apart.
- Emotional well-being and security of the child must be prioritised over parental disagreements.
Judgment and Directions
The Court held that denying the father any contact would deprive the child of love, guidance, and emotional support. Therefore, it directed:
- Video Interaction: The father is entitled to interact with his son via video-conferencing for two hours on alternate Sundays (10 AM–12 noon, Ireland time).
- Cooperation: Both parties must ensure smooth execution without hostility.
- Child’s Best Interest: Any technical/logistical issues must be resolved, keeping in mind that the welfare of the child is paramount.
Legal, Psychological, and Global Perspectives on Preserving the Child’s Right to Parental Affection
1. Child’s Right to Parental Affection
The Court reaffirmed that children are not extensions of parental disputes. Even if parents separate, the child’s right to affection from both parents remains intact. Denying this contact equates to emotional neglect.
2. Constitutional Backing
Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India directs the State to ensure children grow in conditions of freedom, dignity, and love. Emotional deprivation due to forced separation directly violates this principle.
3. Statutory Safeguards
- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Section 25): Custody decisions must serve the child’s welfare.
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: Welfare of the child is paramount.
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by India): Ensures a child’s right to maintain personal relations with both parents.
4. Psychological Dimension
Child psychologists emphasise that severing contact with one parent can cause long-term trauma, identity issues, and trust deficits. Courts, therefore, adopt models of “continuing contact” rather than absolute separation.
5. Global Perspective
Comparative jurisprudence (UK, US, and EU) also emphasises the principle of “shared parenting”. Physical custody may be exclusive, but emotional and psychological parenting must be preserved.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated:
The present matter is sensitive because it concerns the future of a young child. When such disputes arise, the central question is not who is right or wrong as between the parents, but what arrangement will best serve the child. The emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the child must always come first.
It is also clear to us that the conduct of both parents has not been ideal. Their personal differences have grown into a long and bitter conflict. However, the Court cannot allow the child to become a casualty of this conflict. What matters most is that the child grows up in an atmosphere where he feels secure, loved, and cared for.
…….Every child has a right to the affection of both parents…..
……We are therefore of the view that the appellant’s request for video interaction is reasonable……
Broader Implications of the Judgment
- Recognition of Digital Visitation: The Court’s acceptance of video interaction acknowledges technological tools in maintaining emotional bonds.
- Check on Hostile Parenting: The ruling implicitly warns against one parent alienating the child from the other.
- Evolution of Custody Jurisprudence: Custody is no longer seen as a zero-sum game but as a shared responsibility, even across borders.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoj Dhankar v. Neeharika & Ors. reinforces that while parental separation may be unavoidable, emotional separation from a child is unjustifiable. A child’s welfare demands not just material security but also emotional continuity with both parents.
By granting digital visitation rights, the Court has struck a balance between the practical realities of relocation and the deeper necessity of preserving a child’s bond with both parents. This decision is a landmark step in reaffirming that the best interests of the child are always paramount, and no parental conflict can justify depriving a child of love and emotional connection.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams