Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Sugirtha vs. Gowtham

Not available · 2024 INSC 1036Decided 20 Dec 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

A mother had filed for divorce alleging cruelty and domestic violence by her husband, with whom she had a daughter born in 2022; the couple had separated within months of the child's birth. The Family Court granted the father interim weekly visitation, requiring the mother to bring the child roughly 300 km round-trip (Madurai to Karur) every Sunday to hand the child over at a temple. The Madras High Court upheld this arrangement (while adjusting the hours), and the mother appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the long travel was harmful to the two-year-old child and that the father was effectively a stranger to her.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while the father, as a natural guardian, is entitled to visitation, the arrangement must serve the child's best interest and welfare, which is the paramount consideration. It cannot be designed in a way that burdens a toddler with a taxing 300-km round trip every week. The Court found that neither the Family Court nor the High Court had given cogent reasons for fixing Karur, the father's town, as the venue. It modified the directions so that visitation would instead take place in Madurai (the mother's city) in a public park or temple, with the mother present nearby (about 10 feet away) given the child's tender age, without disturbing the broader custody/divorce proceedings still pending below.

Lesson Learnt

In child visitation disputes, courts will recentre arrangements around the child's convenience and welfare, not administrative convenience for the adults: a parent's right to visitation does not override the practical and emotional toll that travel or venue choices place on a young child.

Sugirtha vs. Gowtham – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware