Bengaluru: A father who has voluntarily given up responsibility for his child cannot later seek visitation rights, Karnataka high court held recently, observing that parental rights cannot be separated from parental responsibilities.“When a father is not ready to take up responsibility for the child financially and emotionally, he cannot interfere in the child’s life for visitation again. When he avoids duty, he can’t get rights,” Justice P Sree Sudha observed in a June 29 order while allowing a petition filed by the boy’s mother.The petitioner, a Bengaluru resident, had challenged a family court order passed under the Guardian and Wards Act on Jan 30, 2026, granting visitation rights to her former husband in respect of their five-year-old son.According to the mother, their marriage was dissolved through a settlement reached at the Bangalore Mediation Centre on Sept 24, 2024. Under one of its terms, she was to remain the permanent custodian and guardian of the child, born in July 2021. The father had expressly stated that he had no objection to this arrangement and had voluntarily given up his visitation rights.She argued that in view of this settlement, the man’s subsequent petition under the Guardian and Wards Act was not maintainable.The mother further submitted that from the child’s birth, the father had made no effort to visit, care for, or support the boy financially or emotionally. She also informed the court that the man had since remarried. Despite being served notice on the proceedings before the high court, the father didn’t appear in court.After examining the records, Justice Sree Sudha noted that the mother had consistently maintained that the father had shown no interest in the child’s upbringing after the divorce. The judge observed that the family court had granted visitation rights without properly considering these facts. It had also directed the father to bear 50% of the child’s educational expenses.The high court held that the father had consciously relinquished his visitation rights as part of the mediated settlement and could not be permitted to reopen the issue through fresh litigation barely a year later. The mother never sought maintenance but only wanted to be declared the permanent custodian of the child in his best interests, the judge noted, allowing her petition.
