Karnataka HC granted visitation rights to a father to meet his daughter while his wife argued that he had failed to pay the entire maintenance amount of ₹60,000 p.m. awarded for her and their minor daughter.

Court held that a father could not be denied the opportunity to maintain a relationship with his child merely because of a dispute concerning maintenance. It emphasised that welfare and best interests of the child must remain the paramount consideration while determining visitation rights.

The parties got married on Dec 4, 2017, and their daughter was born on Jan 30, 2019. Following matrimonial disputes, wife filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of adultery and desertion. During the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, husband filed an application u/s 26 HMA, seeking visitation rights to meet their daughter, who was residing with wife.

The trial court awarded maintenance of ₹40,000 p.m. to wife, which was subsequently enhanced by Karnataka HC to ₹60,000 p.m. for the wife and child. On Feb 3, 2025, trial court allowed husband’s application for visitation, permitting him to meet the child twice a month for 3 hours, make daily video calls for 10 minutes from Monday to Friday, attend school events, meet the child on her birthday, and keep her with him for 10 days during summer vacation.

Challenging trial court’s order, wife contended that husband had failed to comply with the maintenance order, having paid only a portion of the amount towards the child’s maintenance while leaving her own maintenance unpaid.

She argued that husband should not be permitted to exercise visitation rights until outstanding maintenance had been paid. She also objected to daily video calls, arguing that trial court had not adequately considered child’s tender age, education, safety, and emotional well-being.

However, husband submitted an affidavit stating that he had paid the maintenance due towards the child. He further contended that wife had obstructed his attempts to meet their daughter despite the visitation order.

Karnataka HC acknowledged that husband was obligated to comply with maintenance order and directed him to pay arrears due to his wife in accordance with its earlier order. However, it observed that father could not be denied the opportunity to maintain a relationship with his daughter merely because of the maintenance dispute.

Accordingly, Court modified the visitation arrangement ordered by the trial court. The father was permitted to meet the child on weekends or public holidays for 3 hours per day (maximum of 3 days per month) at a mutually convenient place.

He was also permitted to attend child’s school events, meet her for one hour on her birthday, and take her with him for 10 days during the summer vacation. However, the permission to make daily video calls was withdrawn. Court also directed wife to cooperate in facilitating the visitation and refrain from obstructing the meetings.