'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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