138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Child's Right to Both Parents' Affection, Orders Video Conferencing Interactions: Delhi HC

04 September 2024 11:05 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment pronounced on August 17, 2023, the Delhi High Court underscored the paramount importance of a child's right to receive affection from both parents, upholding the significance of maintaining a strong parent-child bond even in cases of spatial separation. The verdict, rendered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, came as a response to an appeal lodged by Siddharth Govindani against a Family Court order declining his application for temporary custody of his minor child.

The High Court, after a meticulous analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, emphasized that a child's welfare and balanced growth must remain at the forefront of such disputes. The judgment cited a series of Supreme Court precedents that highlighted a child's inherent right to receive affection from both parents. The bench stressed that while permanent custody matters are under consideration, the child's access to both parents should not be curtailed.

High Court stated, "The child's best interest requires that he should have guidance and affection of his father in his formative years, for which he should have access to his father to develop affection." In a digital age, the court further acknowledged the practicality of using technology to facilitate interactions. Accordingly, the court ordered video conferencing interactions between the appellant-father and the minor child every Saturday and Sunday, during a flexible one-hour time frame from 11:00 am to 12:00 noon (Indian time).

The ruling also directed the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court to expedite the pending application related to custody and consider formulating a co-parenting plan that ensures effective and meaningful interactions between the father and the son. The court noted that the child's age and circumstances warranted a balanced approach to maintain the parent-child bond, even in the face of geographical separation.

This landmark decision serves as a precedent, highlighting the courts' commitment to safeguarding a child's well-being and emotional growth by upholding the importance of maintaining connections with both parents, regardless of physical distances. The judgment aims to strike a harmonious balance between the child's best interests and a father's affectionate involvement in the child's upbringing.

Date of Decision: August 17, 2023

SIDDHARTH GOVINDANI vs LEEPAKSHI

Latest Legal News