Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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