Tanisha Rana
Published on: October 18, 2022 at 20:36 IST
The Madras High Court emphasised that parents must put their “ego” aside for the benefit of the child while dismissing a wife’s habeas corpus petition alleging that her husband had held their four-year-old boy in illegal custody.
The petition was rejected by Justices S. Vaidyanathan and C. Saravanan, who noted that the child was not in the husband’s illegal custody.
However, the court granted the petitioner freedom to approach the appropriate forum and determine her course of action for obtaining the child’s custody.
In this instance, the woman claimed that she had gone to her parents’ house with her son to give birth to her second kid as a result of a marital conflict. While doing so, the spouse took her minor son from her custody.
The husband also asserted that the wife was the one who left the minor son in his custody and went to her parents’ house to give birth to the second child.
After learning that the respondent husband had filed for divorce and obtaining notice, she only filed the current petition.
The court noted that ego frequently ruins partnerships,
“The parties should bear in mind that ‘ego’ is just a small three letter word, which can destroy a big twelve letter word called ‘relationship’, as ego and love will not travel together. Be that as it may”
“This goes without saying that this Court cannot decide about the custody of the child and it is for the petitioner, being a mother to work out her remedy before the appropriate forum for custody of the child.”
The court reaffirmed Justice Vaidyanathan‘s comments that ego and intolerance were like “footwear” that should be placed outside the house to prevent the youngster from leading a sad life.
In another case, the court compared the wife to a root and the husband to a trunk, observing that when the root was destroyed, the entire family would suffer.
The court also took note of this decision. As a result, it was equally crucial for the husband to consider his wife’s welfare.
Case Title: Mrs Karthika vs. Superintendent of Police
