Summary and Analysis of Manoj Dhankar vs Neeharika & Ors 2025 INSC 1068

1. Heading of the Judgment
Manoj Dhankar vs. Neeharika & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 11332 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 25029 of 2025)
Supreme Court of India
Decided on September 2, 2025
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Citation: Manoj Dhankar vs. Neeharika & Ors., 2025 INSC 1068 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Divorce grounds)

• Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Divorce by mutual consent)

• Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Custody of minor children)

3. Basic Judgment Details
The appellant, Manoj Dhankar, is the father of a minor child (aged 9 years). The first respondent, Neeharika, is the mother, and the second and third respondents are her parents. The parties have been involved in a long-standing matrimonial and custody dispute. The child has been living with the mother in Ireland since July 2023. The appellant initially sought custody but later limited his request to video visitation rights. The High Court dismissed his appeal against the Family Court’s order denying custody. The Supreme Court modified the order to grant video interaction rights.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and granted the appellant video visitation rights with his son.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• Background of the Dispute:
  The appellant and respondent were married in 2012 and had a son in 2016. The mother left the matrimonial home in 2017 and filed for divorce. The appellant sought custody in 2018. The Family Court initially granted limited visitation rights but later dismissed the custody petition due to the appellant’s violation of interim orders. The mother took the child to Ireland during the pendency of the appeal.

• Child’s Welfare Paramount:
  The Court emphasized that the child’s emotional, mental, and physical well-being is the primary consideration. The child is settled in Ireland with the mother, and disturbing this arrangement was deemed not in the child’s interest.

• Video Visitation Rights:
  The appellant limited his request to video interaction with the child. The Court held that every child has the right to maintain a relationship with both parents, regardless of geographical distance. Denying such contact would deprive the child of the father’s love and guidance.

• Directions Issued:
  The Court directed that the appellant shall interact with his son via video conferencing for two hours on every alternate Sunday (10:00 AM to 12:00 noon Ireland time). Both parties were instructed to cooperate in good faith to ensure smooth implementation.

• Conclusion:
  The appeal was disposed of with the above directions, ensuring the father’s involvement in the child’s life while prioritizing the child’s stability and well-being.

5. Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the child’s residence with the mother in Ireland but granted the father regular video visitation rights to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship.