Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Child’s Discomfort in Presence of Father Paramount : Delhi High Court Upholds Family Court Decision on Interim Custody

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has upheld the Family Court’s decision to deny interim custody of a minor child to the appellant, Amit Sharma, during ongoing divorce proceedings. The court emphasized the child’s best interests and psychological welfare, considering the child’s evident discomfort in the father’s presence. The judgment underscores the importance of a child’s mental state and gradual adjustment in custody and visitation matters.

The parties, Amit Sharma and Sugandha Sharma, were married in July 2013 and had a son, Shrestha Sharma, born in January 2016. Marital discord led to the respondent leaving the matrimonial home in September 2021 with the child. Subsequently, the respondent filed a police complaint alleging domestic violence and initiated divorce proceedings. Amid these proceedings, the appellant sought visitation rights and interim custody of their son.

The Family Court Initially granted virtual visitation rights and later allowed supervised physical meetings. However, due to the child’s apparent discomfort and apprehension in the father’s presence, the Family Court denied the appellant’s request for interim custody, prompting the appeal.

The High Court placed significant weight on the interim reports from the Family Court Counsellor and Children’s First, a reputed mental health organization. These reports consistently noted the child’s discomfort and reluctance to interact with the father. “The child’s well-being and comfort are paramount in custody matters,” the bench remarked.

Reaffirming the principle of the child’s best interest, the court observed, “In matters of custody, the psychological state of the child holds utmost importance. Forced interactions that induce fear or discomfort in the child are detrimental to their welfare.” The court also acknowledged allegations of the respondent tutoring the child but found no immediate evidence to support a change in interim custody.

The court directed that supervised visitation should continue twice a month under the supervision of a counsellor. “Gradual adjustment is necessary to foster a healthy relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent,” the court noted. The previous arrangement of meetings at the Children’s Room, Dwarka Courts, was upheld, ensuring the presence of a counsellor to mitigate the child’s apprehensions.

Addressing the appellant’s claim of the respondent tutoring the child against him, the court remarked, “While parental influence is a concern, the immediate psychological impact on the child is the primary consideration. Current assessments show the child’s need for stability and gradual counselling.”

Justice Amit Bansal highlighted, “The child’s apprehension in the father’s presence is evident from the counsellor’s reports. Immediate custody changes could exacerbate the child’s mental distress.” He further stated, “The child’s tender age and need for psychological stability outweigh the appellant’s request for interim custody.”

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the appeal reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to prioritizing a child’s psychological welfare in custody disputes. The decision underscores the necessity of medical and psychological evaluations in determining a child’s best interests. By upholding supervised visitation and denying interim custody, the judgment aims to ensure a balanced approach that fosters a gradual, healthy relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent. This ruling is expected to guide future custody cases, emphasizing the critical role of a child’s mental well-being in judicial decisions.

 

Date of Decision: July 09, 2024

Amit Sharma vs. Sugandha Sharma

Similar News