Court Refused To Interfere Mother With Child’s 9 Days’ Custody For Foreign Travel: Delhi HC
D.D:22 JUNE 2022
In matters involving the custody of children, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the best interests of the children must be given the highest priority.
A vacation bench comprised of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma considered a petition challenging an order issued by the Family Court on June 8, 2022, allowing the mother to take the child to Malaysia for nine days.
The Family Court added that the mother must bring the child back to Delhi on July 3 in order for her to return to school following the summer break. In addition, the court ordered the mother and father to strictly adhere to the custody and visitation schedule outlined in its prior judicial orders.
The father had petitioned the High Court on the grounds that the Family Court had not considered all of the facts and circumstances and had issued the order without taking into account the mother’s flight risk.
The father also asserted that, in the past, children were not always returned, a fact acknowledged by the High Court in various cases.
Examining the facts of the case, the court stated: “This court is firmly of the opinion that in matters involving the custody of children, the court must give paramount weight to the welfare of the children.”
The Court noted that the Family Court, after considering all of the parties’ arguments, had issued a detailed order permitting the mother to take the child to Malaysia for nine days. It was also noted that the mother had previously been permitted to take the child to Dubai.
“I believe that any intervention by this court at this stage and with such short notice would only cause psychological trauma to the child. Therefore, this court does not feel the need to interfere with the orders of the learned Family Court Judge “court stated.
While upholding the challenged order, the Court noted that it did not find any perversity, malice, or lack of mental application in the Family Court’s decision.
On July 15, the Court notified the mother of the respondent and referred the matter to a roster bench.
PANKAJ JAIN
Versus
PARUL JAIN
