{"id":262412,"date":"2022-02-25T09:00:44","date_gmt":"2022-02-25T03:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=262412"},"modified":"2022-03-04T08:55:39","modified_gmt":"2022-03-04T03:25:39","slug":"child-custody","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/25\/child-custody\/","title":{"rendered":"Due to father\u2019s field job, mother granted custody of child: Did Chh HC also grant contact and visitation right to father? Read"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chhattisgarh High Court: <\/strong>In a child custody battle, the Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Rajani Dubey, JJ., reiterated the position of law in the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan<\/em>, (2020) 3 SCC 67<\/a>, wherein it was held that the court cannot provide one happy home with two parents to the child then let the child have the benefit of two happy homes with one parent each, further this Court granted visitation and contact right to the father.<\/p>\n

A father of the child had filed an instant appeal against the decision of the Family Court whereby the child\u2019s custody had been ordered to be kept with the mother\/respondent.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/span><\/h4>\n

It was stated that at the time of the birth, the child was suffering from a certain ailment, and he had a lump on spinal cord, as such he was not able to discharge his functions including urine, etc., therefore, the child was being treated continuously.<\/p>\n

Due to the transferrable jobs, the husband and wife were at different locations, after which the husband started alleging the wife that she was not treating the child properly. Husband filed an application for custody of the child which was decided by the impugned order whereby the father was denied the custody and hence the present appeal was filed.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n

High Court expressed that, in cases of custody of child, the society values are riddled with contradiction. Though the Courts have never missed the finer points of the paramount issue of welfare of the child.<\/p>\n

As per the existing factors, the father\u2019s job involved field work, whereas the mother\u2019s job was of teaching and in order to take care of the child she could take him along to the school, hence the father though was a well-wisher and wanted to take care of the child, but the degree of care as was being extended by the mother were higher to hold the sway to have the custody of the child, especially considering the nature of ailment with which the child was suffering from birth.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026when the father is working at field moving from one place to other, how it is expected that the father would be able to give the company to extend the physical support to the child?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Hence, Family court\u2019s decision of giving the custody of child to the mother was the correct decision.<\/p>\n

The court observed that the “contact rights” is also important for the development of the child especially in cases where both parents live in different places the concept of contact rights in the modern age would be contact by telephone, e-mail or in fact we feel the best system of contact, if available between the parties should be video calling.<\/p>\n

Order of the Court:<\/p>\n