“For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father”Before we examine that aspect, we may advert to the need for the visitation rights of the father to be recognised in the peculiar circumstances of this case. From what we gathered in the course of an interactive session with the minor, we concluded that the minor has been thoroughly antagonized against the Respondent father. He held him responsible for his inability to travel to Malaysia, with his grandparents because if he does so, both the mother and her parents will be arrested on the charge of abduction of the minor. He also held the Respondent responsible for his grandparent’s skin problems and other worries. He wanted to stay only in India and wanted to be left alone by the Respondent. He was reluctantly agreeable to meeting and associating with the Respondent provided the Respondent has the red corner notice withdrawn so that he and his grandparents can travel abroad.
50. For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the Appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated. What the Appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despire for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father’s care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life. Nor can the role of the father in his upbringing and grooming to face the realities of life be undermined. It is in that view important for the child’s healthy growth that we grant to the father visitation rights; that will enable the two to stay in touch and share moments of joy, learning and happiness with each other. Since the Respondent is living in another continent such contact cannot be for obvious reasons as frequent as it may have been if they were in the same city. But the forbidding distance that separates the two would get reduced thanks to the modern technology in telecommunications. The Appellant has been according to the Respondent persistently preventing even telephonic contact between the father and the son. May be the son has been so poisoned against him that he does not evince any interest in the father. Be that as it may telephonic contact shall not be prevented by the Appellant for any reason whatsoever and shall be encouraged at all reasonable time. Video conferencing may also be possible between the two which too shall not only be permitted but encouraged by the Appellant.
51. Besides, the father shall be free to visit the minor in India at any time of the year and meet him for two hours on a daily basis, unhindered by any impediment from the mother or her parents or anyone else for that matter. The place where the meeting can take place shall be indicated by the trial Court after verifying the convenience of both the parties in this regard. The trial Court shall pass necessary orders in this regard without delay and without permitting any dilatory tactics in the matter.
52. For the vacations in summer, spring and winter the Respondent shall be allowed to take the minor with him for night stay for a period of one week initially and for longer periods in later years, subject to the Respondent getting the itinerary in this regard approved from the Guardian & Wards Court. The Respondent shall also be free to take the minor out of Delhi subject to the same condition. The Respondent shall for that purpose be given the temporary custody of the minor in presence of the trial court, on any working day on the application of the Respondent. Return of the minor to the Appellant shall also be accordingly before the trial court on a date to be fixed by the court for that purpose. The above directions are subject to the condition that the Respondent does not remove the child from the jurisdiction of this Court pending final disposal of the application for grant of custody by the Guardian and Wards Court, Delhi. We make it clear that within the broad parameters of the directions regarding visitation rights of the Respondent, the parties shall be free to seek further directions from the Court seized of the guardianship proceedings; to take care of any difficulties that may arise in the actual implementation of this order. [ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Ruchi Majoo Versus Sanjeev Majoo JT 2011 (6) SC 167 : (2011) 6 SCALE 290 : AIR 2011 SC 1952 : (2011) 6 SCC 479 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1033]