Supreme Court news: The Supreme Court has refused to approve a divorce settlement agreement that completely denied a mother visitation rights to her three-year-old daughter, calling the clause “disturbing” and emphasising that the welfare of the child must override all other considerations.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan was hearing a transfer petition filed by the estranged wife against her husband, along with an application seeking dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution, read with Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

“The child is just three years of age today. As time will pass by, she will require love, affection, attention etc., of both father and mother,” the bench said on May 6 urging the couple to keep the welfare of their daughter above their marital discord.

The matter was taken up in the committee room after the judges had earlier interacted with the parties online and directed them to appear personally before the court.

The court urged the estranged couple to undergo fresh mediation and requested them to consider reuniting in the interest of their child.

When the parties appeared before the Supreme Court in person, the judges said their interaction with the couple suggested that the marriage had not irretrievably broken down due to grave allegations or deep-rooted hostility.

“After talking to the couple, we have reached a prima facie conclusion that, as such, there are no serious disputes between the parties. It is only on account of some misunderstandings on petty issues that both parted,” the court recorded.

The court noted that although the settlement agreement had been formally reduced into writing after mediation, it was unwilling to place its seal on such terms.

“After speaking to the couple, we outright reject the settlement agreement,” the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court then directed the parties to explore the possibility of reconciliation before a senior mediator again.

The mediator was specifically asked to work towards an equitable arrangement, including visitation rights for the mother.

The Supreme Court directed that the mediation proceedings be conducted through video conferencing.

It also ordered that the fees of the mediator would be paid by the husband.

Recognising the logistical difficulties involved, the court further ordered that if the mediator required the parties to appear physically, the man would have to make travel arrangements for the woman.

Requesting the mediator to make sincere efforts towards reconciliation, the bench said it hoped an “equitable settlement” could still be worked out between the parties “notwithstanding the time that may be consumed”.