LI Network
Published on: January 21, 2024 at 11:00 IST
In a recent pronouncement, the Delhi High Court has underscored that the primary casualty in custody battles is the child, as the minor tends to lose everything due to the escalating polarization of familial relationships, even if one parent emerges victorious.
The division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna expressed these sentiments, emphasizing that being a ‘parent’ is more than just having a child, and the ideal parent is the one who shields the child from the upheaval of parental conflicts.
The Court stressed that the focus should be on the child’s future rather than delving into the past of the parents.
This observation came to light during the court’s consideration of an appeal filed by a mother challenging a family court order that declared both her and her husband, who were living separately, as joint guardians of their minor child. The family court had granted visitation rights to the father, with custody awarded to the mother until the child reaches 18 years of age.
The marital discord between the parties began in 2006, resulting in separation in 2009. Despite the separation, the custody of the minor remained with the mother.
Subsequently, the father filed a Guardianship Petition seeking his appointment as the guardian of the minor and permanent custody, asserting that the mother was unfit to care for the child’s well-being.
The High Court bench, while upholding the family court’s decision on maintaining custody with the mother, acknowledged the necessity for the minor to interact with the father for his overall welfare.
Modifying the visitation rights granted by the family court, the bench directed the mother to bring the child to the Children’s Room of Saket Family Court on the first and third Saturday of each month for a three-hour meeting with the father.
Additionally, the Court allowed the father to speak to the child on the mobile phone at least once a week, contingent upon the minor’s convenience. The court specified that this order would remain effective until the child reaches the age of majority.
Title: X v. Y