Madras HC: Marriage is Not Merely for Carnal Pleasure, Main Purpose is to Procreate

Adoption Law Insider

Sakina Tashrifwala

Published on: September 20, 2022 at 22:56 IST

On Friday, the Madras High Court ruled that those planning to get married should keep in mind that marriage is primarily about having children rather than just enjoying one another’s company.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, a single-judge, stated that divorcing couples who are arguing over who should have custody of their minor children should be aware that the children, who were born into “this vicious world through the act of two individuals for their pleasure,” suffer as a result of these arguments.

“This Court would like to stress and impress upon the persons, who have tied the marital knot that the concept of marriage is not for mere carnal pleasure, but it is mainly for the purpose of progenerating (sic) , which leads to the extension of the familial chain.”

“The child born out of the said wedlock is the connecting link between the two individuals, who have been united over a sacred oath, taken by both.”

“Any act in contravention of the oath on the touchstone of law is nothing but an act with which the hands of the binder of the link is severed,” Court said.

The bench was hearing an application filed by a woman lawyer seeking the interim custody of her two sons, aged nine and six.

According to the statistics, the pair wed in 2009 but started living apart in April 2021.

The woman relocated to a different apartment next door to her marital home, but the couple’s estranged husband and their two sons remained.

In the same building as the woman’s estranged husband, the woman’s parents also resided in another apartment and took care of the kids while the husband was out at work.

While the High Court had previously granted the mother visiting privileges, it was brought to the court’s attention that the husband was not abiding by the ruling and was also alienating the children’s minds by disparaging their mother.

Justice Ramasamy objected to the husband’s actions and stated that isolating a child from a parent constituted cruelty and “child abuse”.

“To turn a child against a parent is to turn a child against himself. Parental alienation is inhuman and it is a menace for the child. In fact, hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child against his/her mother/father unless it is taught by the person whom the children believes,” the Court said.

It stated that the children could no longer be regarded as being in safe possession in light of the behaviour of the estranged husband.

In order to provide their mother temporary custody of both children while the original petition was being resolved, the court issued this directive.

In order to ensure the children’s comfort, it further instructed the lady to make sure they continue to be cared for by their maternal grandparents and to attend school as usual.

The Court continued, saying it was appropriate to express regret over the fact that, despite the law’s best efforts to protect children in custody battles, it was forced to give sole custody of the children to one of the parents.

Therefore, it advised parents to “not get too irritated” by their partners’ quarrels and instead focus their efforts on bringing up their kids to be responsible members of society.

“Law can satisfy the ego, but it can never the satisfy the requirements of the child, as the framers of the law were only conscious of the welfare of the child and not on the mental turmoil that would be faced by a child in such a calamitous situation,” Court said.

Related Post