A parental congress, the non custodial parent and “the unprojected Right to access to his noncustodial parent ie a right seeking by a child by himself” for his congenial, untraumatised growth as next day he may not be classified as “a Neglect” the prologue opens up as such the bracket over the so called [Visitation Rights].

Within the prismatic approach in terms of The Guardians & the Wards Act, the legal fight between the estranged couple makes the child a pawn to settle otherwise an inter se score against each other.

Seldom in a matrimonial case one finds the urge from the parties to earn, to craft a win - win situation and in contrast one finds “litigant approach “ taking the front seat, where point scoring becomes the goal rather than addressing the core problem. The collateral issues are generally taking the front seat rather than addressing the first line concern and among the collateral issues child visitation rights stand first in the hierarchy.

In acknowledgement to the above, the Non custodial parent is found approaching the Court for Visitation rights vis-a-vis the child and the same is often allowed but under supervisory presence of the child's custodial parent.

Here too, the arrangement by itself in the first discourse interbangs to know why vigil? or be held Why not a free atmosphere for a non custodial parent while meeting his / her child,as the case may be? or why not camera surveillance, the best alternative?

Hooking up to the core issue as raised in the prologue the sling shot too seeks its reply within the titled expression, a child – a silent stake holder.

So humble effort with an altogether different objectivity as to Child's right of seeking of access to his noncustodial parent calls for study as yet things are seen vis-a-vis a child through the gloss of custodial and the non custodial parents.

With a broken family, a child caught in the whirlpool of crisis, the crisis often more engineered by the estranged spouses by themselves and be so by their arrogance, false ego, peculiar temper, craze to sub due the Opposite party or be any other reason, does position a Child in terms of “ Space Seeking”.

Urge and interest to care and take steps best for his psychological, natural, emotional bonding though appear always in judicial mind upon opting by a non custodial parent on agitating the issue vis-a-vis child's custody or visitation rights but the subject herein asks a Question – Who represents a child?

It being an undeniable truth that the parties on either side do project their own point of view and plead it likewise. They do talk about a child, do discuss him but while going through this phase a child remains unrepresented in his own capacity. He goes unheard.

The force and strength of pleadings, the evidence, the line and approach of arguments put forth by the rival parties before the Court of law becomes the matrix to decide a child's fate and this reads a material talking about a child and the child remaining of his own unrepresented and unheard.

The court decides the fate of the Point of determination as be to grant of Custody (interim order absolute) or to Visitation rights of a Non custodial parent and quite visible a Child's own interest / concern remains untold.

Lens to focus:

An independent,scientific, latest research born to appreciate the fair child development, a need of a conducive atmosphere, the psychological blend projection is needful to be known before the court in the peculiar and particular facts of a case (on behalf of the child by himself). A predisposed mind as (a Guardian Court) can never be attributed to the court itself as the same offend the plea of justice seeking & justice doing chapters.

A child is unrepresented. He is not given any space directly to put forth his independent concerns, which could be better projected by his lawyer based upon multiple factors such as the child's particular IQ, placement, psychological factors, society etc, etc. He better needs to be afforded with an assistance through Amicus curie, through the annals of legal Aid with expected rich expertise on the professional discourse and courts may call for an independent assistance from the psychologist, child welfare expert.

To discuss somebody as an object or as a subject predicates the material appreciation likewise and so,in the Guardian appointment cases, defining and understanding rights of the contesting parties to it, a provision called Visitation rights for a non custodial parent stands existing and this factor though has its bearing upon a minor’s growth but the observations / appreciations go always by the particular line of projections interests as put forth by the rival parents & not invoked by or on behalf of a child by himself in recognition to his own individual right to access to his parent,his right to life.

This right of a child needs to be given space during the Summary trial of the Guardian appointment matter.

No exaggeration in saying that while discussing a child's growth, he is being discussed by the rival parties within their own projections and this question repeatedly keeps asking as why a child is not heard by himself? Who represents him?

Not ignorant about the fact that a Guardian Court is pares parentis and as such while delivery of justice the paramount consideration before the court holds to be over all development and welfare of a child but this guiding factor for appreciation no more justify a child to be unheard in the facts of a particular frame of facts shaped and projected by his estranged parents. The Parameters of justice no longer seem to remain a silent spectator. It needs the space of a child beyond his space seeking status before his estranged parents as often noted down on practical sides of the law, same as for the sake of litigation.

Right to life, a constitutional guarantee, a pledge, a commitment with universally recognised Human rights can never be imagined to let remain a child denuded of his independent right of being represented before the law courts.

The law courts treat child as a subject of dispute and so in first stroke he is denuded as such to speak up for his own and of his own is non existent on practical lines and erroneously held justice done.

The holding of proxy representation by the contesting estranged parents of a child vis-a-vis a child no more holds sound on principles as the acrimony, a litigant approach having taken the front seat to overwave the opponent, to gain by one way or the other pain for other party, the projections, the arguments of the rival litigant parties cannot be held to be fair, honest representation of a child.

A child is not a dumb driven chattel. He is a speaking entity and his expressions, needs, concerns need the language of an expert who in turn needs legal professional services before the law courts.

A child remains voiceless in a Court. He is being talked about but not heard as if he is an object of discussion between the estranged spouses and the court like any a property dispute

Art 12 of the United Nations Convention on The Rights of the Child & Art 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights do speak of children's rights of participation in matters concerning them.

As a child's best interests are needful in Guardian cases and while appreciating the same what constitutes the basic step? Obviously when he is heard. His voice is generated through a legal medium rather he is heard as being discussed.

The infighting parents fighting a legal battle upon their family discord on facts as observed treat their child as a pawn and make either party dance at some body’s grave.

There have been cases where even siblings stand separated from each other by estranged parents and still they approach the law courts with their artificially articulated child welfare sermon and leave the court,a parens patriae to decide and herein, the courts seen to be feeling with extra burden ie in absence of the voice of a child before a court to do a justice of welfare within scales of justice itself.

The children of the estranged spouses grow under nuances of different yardsticks and face hostile environments,are found harassed, disturbed, emotionally detached,mentally depressed and socially marginalised. The litigant couple in a race to win over the litigative steps, to race against the opposite litigative steps does place the ignored, neglected children in a dock of determination of their future within the projected theories etc and the most cunning and killing factor being that such a child remains unheard,is rendered voiceless under the cloak of branding by these litigant parties as well wishers of their children.

Till date, one finds that courts consider a child's intelligent preferences in evaluation of guardians cases. Courts do consider the wishes of a child, courts do hold in camera trials in such matters and Court believes itself for a pro active parental role in the expression parents patriae. We are conscious of the fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2026 asked courts to deploy child psychologist to evaluate child's mind but the question remains searching for its answer as when a child be heard as an independent party status in a Guardian case, why law courts be not assisted on every pros and cons of both the constructive, purposive and welfare legislation with rich matrix of a most scientific, developed and developing child psychology directly on behalf a child directly rather his fate be determined upon the content of rival litigant parties and he be not rendered voiceless.

The bedrock of peace and tranquility when turned into a war room it is hardly within the charged atmosphere, roses will get chance of survival,an atmosphere which they deserve otherwise and within this clash of matrimonial interests, a child if not be heard at his own level, within his own independent individual status,within his own rights originating from the fundamental Right to Life level, it is sure to lead same to a grave miscarriage of justice.

The outcome framed herein. aims to emphasize the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to child's rights,recognising their individual personality,autonomy beyond being bracketed as a Ward and so need felt for creating an independent space within chapters of The Guardians & wards Act for a child to express his concerns and assert his rights against the estranged parents, ensuring voice of a child to be heard and he be given due consideration in matters affecting his life.