Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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