Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

Child's welfare prioritized over parents' demands in custody battle – Kerala HC

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court in a latest Judgement (ANISH vs ASWATHY D.D 15 Feb 2023) held that the welfare of the child is the primary and paramount consideration in matters of child custody. The child requires the love, affection, company, and protection of both parents, and it is his/her basic human right.

The petitioner sought permanent custody of his 16-year-old son, who was in the custody of the respondent-mother. The petitioner also requested interim custody of the child for certain days of the week. The respondent opposed the petitioner's request, citing the petitioner's alleged extramarital affair and the child's obesity and related disabilities. After hearing from both parties and the child, the Family Court granted the petitioner visitation rights on every second Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, with the respondent choosing a suitable location for the visits.

The petitioner, not satisfied with the court's decision, filed an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the arrangements made by the Family Court. The Court directed the Secretary of the Taluk Legal Services Committee to visit the child and submit a report on the child's limitations for movement and other relevant circumstances. The report was then forwarded to the Court by the Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee. The Court also directed the child to attend the proceedings online, which were held in-camera.

The Kerala High Court observed that the welfare of the child is the primary and paramount consideration in matters of child custody. The Court noted that the child requires the love, affection, company, and protection of both parents, and it is his/her basic human right. The Court held that the custody of the child should be shared between both parents in such a way that the child does not lose social, physical, and psychological contact with any one of the two parents.

The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child must be given predominance, and too much importance cannot be given to the demands of the parents. The Court held that emotional bonding and warmth with both parents are essential for proper upbringing, and overnight custody of the child to the petitioner is not conducive to the child's best interests.

As a result, the Court upheld the Family Court's order but modified the time allowed for visitation. The petitioner was allowed to interact with the child from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon on every second and fourth Saturday, with the respondent choosing the venue for interaction, taking into account the convenience and preference of the child. The Original Petition was disposed of accordingly.

ANISH vs ASWATHY

Latest Legal News