Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a petition was filed the petitioner, who was the mother of the minor child, challenging the order dated 27-08-2022 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, South-West District (‘Family Court’), denying the custody of the minor child, who was aged around ten years now, to the petitioner, Navin Chawla, J.*, opined that the Family Court could have explored taking the assistance of a Counselor attached to the Court for not only counseling the child, but also ensuring that the bond between the petitioner and the minor child was re-established without prejudicing the disputes that were filed inter se between the petitioner and Respondent 1 and their respective family members. Thus, the Court disposed of the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 27-08-2022 of the Family Court.
The only reason given by the Family Court to deny the custody of the minor child to the petitioner was that she had lodged several cases against her in-laws and the respondent had contended that it was not in the welfare and interest of the child that the child should stay with his mother.
The Court opined that merely because the relationship between the parties had turned acrimonious, resulting in FIRs being registered against each other making serious allegations against each other, it could not be a ground to deny an attempt at re-establishing a bond between the petitioner and the minor child.
The Court noted that the impugned order also recorded that the Family Court had interacted with the minor child who had flatly refused to talk to the petitioner or to stay with her. The Court opined that the bond between the petitioner and the minor child had been broken; however, this could not be a ground to deny the visitation rights to the petitioner qua the minor son.
The Court opined that the Family Court could have explored taking the assistance of a Counselor attached to the Court for not only counseling the child, but also ensuring that the bond between the petitioner and the minor child was re-established without prejudicing the disputes that were filed inter se between the petitioner and Respondent 1 and their respective family members. The Court further opined that in such matters, it was the interest of the child which was paramount and had to be first borne in mind rather than the interest of the warring parents and the interest of the child would be in receiving the love and affection from both the parents, though they might be warring with each other.
Thus, the Court disposed of the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 27-08-2022 of the Family Court. The Court further held that the Family Court shall direct the methods and modes of establishing a bond between the petitioner and the minor child, by inter alia, to begin with directing visitation rights of the petitioner over the child before the Counselor attached to the Court. The result of such exercise would then culminate in a decision of the Family Court to order further unsupervised visitation rights or grant of custody, interim or otherwise, to the petitioner.
[Rajesh Kumari v. Dhiraj, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5430, decided on 01-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vikram Singh Jakhar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Vinay Kumar Sharma, Aaditya Sharma, Advocates
*Judgment authored by: Justice Navin Chawla
I found this article on the acrimonious relationship between parents and its impact on the reestablishment of the bond between mother and child to be quite enlightening. It’s crucial that the legal system recognizes the importance of fostering a healthy parent-child relationship, even in challenging circumstances. Kudos to the Delhi High Court for its insightful decision in this matter!